See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7600996

A Multilevel Examination of the Relationships Among Training Outcomes,

Mediating Regulatory Processes, and Adaptive Performance.

Article  in  Journal of Applied Psychology · October 2005

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.827 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
156 2,139

3 authors, including:

Gilad Chen Craig Wallace

University of Maryland, College Park University of Denver
34 PUBLICATIONS   9,260 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   3,510 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gilad Chen on 24 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 90, No. 5, 827– 841 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.827

A Multilevel Examination of the Relationships Among Training Outcomes,

Mediating Regulatory Processes, and Adaptive Performance

Gilad Chen Brian Thomas

Texas A&M University Georgia Institute of Technology

J. Craig Wallace
Tulane University

This study examined whether cognitive, affective–motivational, and behavioral training outcomes relate
to posttraining regulatory processes and adaptive performance similarly at the individual and team levels
of analysis. Longitudinal data were collected from 156 individuals composing 78 teams who were trained
on and then performed a simulated flight task. Results showed that posttraining regulation processes
related similarly to adaptive performance across levels. Also, regulation processes fully mediated the
influences of self- and collective efficacy beliefs on individual and team adaptive performance. Finally,
knowledge and skill more strongly and directly related to adaptive performance at the individual than the
team level of analysis. Implications to theory and practice, limitations, and future directions are
discussed.

Changes in the nature of work, such as rapid technological
innovations and the increasing reliance on interdependent work
teams, require employees to be highly adaptable (Ilgen & Pulakos,
1999; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). This new
reality has created a greater need for improving training effective-
ness in organizations. In particular, it is critical that we gain a
better understanding of which learning outcomes developed during
training (e.g., knowledge, skills, and other characteristics) are most
likely to enable employees to effectively adapt to turbulent and
unpredictable work environments (Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully,
& Salas, 1998; Kozlowski et al., 2001; Salas & Cannon-Bowers,
2001). Moreover, it is important to consider whether and how
training interventions can enable effective transfer in interdepen-
dent work teams, on which adaptability is crucial at both the
individual and team levels (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Kozlowski &
Salas, 1997).
Unfortunately, despite progress in the literatures on training and
transfer (e.g., Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Salas & Cannon-
Gilad Chen, Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas
A&M University; Brian Thomas, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute
of Technology; J. Craig Wallace, Department of Psychology, Tulane
University.
Data collection for this study was conducted while Gilad Chen and J.
Craig Wallace were at the School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of
Technology. An early version of this article was presented at the August
2003 63rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA.
We thank Michelle Marks and John Mathieu for their help during early
phases of the project, Dov Eden and Steve Kozlowski for providing helpful
and insightful comments on drafts of the article, and Erin Page for her
assistance in data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gilad
Chen, Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX 77843-4221. E-mail: gilad.chen@tamu
.edu
Bowers, 2001) and work teams (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), we
still know relatively little about how individual- and team-level
learning outcomes translate simultaneously into adaptive posttrain-
ing performance in work teams. We are aware of no multilevel
studies in which both training and transfer outcomes were exam-
ined simultaneously at the individual and team levels of analysis,
and only a few individual-level studies (e.g., Smith-Jentsch, Salas,
& Brannick, 2001) have considered contextual influences of teams
on individual-level transfer. Furthermore, when team researchers
have studied training and transfer the focus has been on team-level
predictors, processes, and outcomes and has largely ignored
individual-level relationships (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Kozlowski &
Bell, 2003). Accordingly, the purpose of the present research was
to delineate and test a multilevel model relating training outcomes
to training transfer at both the individual and team levels. To do so,
we integrated the individual-level and team-level literatures on
training and posttraining transfer performance, as well as self-
regulation theory and theories of team processes. Thus, the present
research provides both vertical (i.e., multilevel) and horizontal
(i.e., within level) integrations and extensions of the extant train-
ing, work teams, and motivation literatures.
One type of work team in which adaptability is particularly
crucial is the action team (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith,
1999), defined as “highly skilled specialist teams cooperating in
brief performance events that require improvisation in unpredict-
able circumstances” (Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990, p.
121). Examples of such teams include sports teams, Special Forces
combat teams, search and rescue teams, and flight crews. Training
transfer is particularly challenging in such teams, because of the
novel, complex, dynamic, and unpredictable nature of their work
environment (Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002; Marks,
Zaccaro & Mathieu, 2000). Such teams can rarely be trained to
perform effectively in all possible environments and situations.
Instead, training programs directed at action teams should focus on
developing certain knowledge, skills, and other characteristics that

827
828 CHEN, THOMAS, AND WALLACE
enable such teams to be highly adaptable (Kozlowski et al., 1999;
Marks et al., 2000, 2002). Therefore, the present research focused
on action teams and their individual members.
Conceptual Foundations and Framework
We developed a framework for studying training transfer in
teams, according to which training and/or learning outcomes relate
to training transfer performance at least partially through posttrain-
ing regulation processes involving the reactions and actions of
trainees in the pursuit of posttraining task goals. Figure 1 delin-
eates a multilevel model derived from the framework, which
includes similar multilevel constructs (i.e., constructs that share
similar meanings across levels of analysis; Chen, Mathieu, &
Bliese, 2004), as well as comparable individual- and team-level
relationships among these constructs (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Below, we delineate the constructs in the model and discuss the
expected relationships among them.
Training Transfer and Adaptive Performance
Training transfer is usually defined in terms of the generaliza-
tion and maintenance of knowledge and skills acquired during
training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
More recently, several researchers have argued that the generali-
zation component of training transfer is more critical when con-
sidering complex, unpredictable, and dynamic posttraining envi-
ronments (Ford et al., 1998; Kozlowski et al., 2001). In its core, the
generalization component of training transfer involves adaptive
expertise (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). Adaptive expertise is
the capability to modify knowledge, skill, and other characteristics
Figure 1. A multilevel model of training outcomes and posttraining adaptive performance.
acquired during training to effectively meet novel, difficult, and
complex situations (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). Following the work
of Ford et al. (1998) and Kozlowski et al. (2001), in the present
research we examined the transfer criterion that represents adap-
tive performance, or the extent to which trainees perform effec-
tively in complex and novel situations following training. It is
important to note, we considered both individual and team adap-
tive performance. Team adaptive performance reflects the extent to
which the team meets its objectives during a transfer performance
episode, whereas individual adaptive performance reflects the ex-
tent to which each member effectively executes his or her role in
the team during the transfer episode.
Trainees in our study learned to operate a simulated attack
helicopter and were then asked to apply the tasks and procedures
learned during training in a more novel and complex environment.
Specifically, the transfer task involved higher component com-
plexity than the tasks trainees were exposed to during training—
that is, it involved a greater number of distinct acts and required
handling more informational cues when performing the task
(Wood, 1986). According to Smith et al. (1997), this characterizes
a relatively weak form of adaptation process, in which people are
required to apply the same methods learned during training to a
new exemplar (e.g., learning to operate a car off-road or under
severe weather after being accustomed to operating it on highways
in good weather). We focused on this level of adaptability because
participants in this study lacked the level of expertise needed to
perform more complex forms of adaptability, and asking them to
apply the tasks they learned in training in a more complex and
novel environment still required them to be highly adaptable (cf.
Smith et al., 1997). In addition to being more complex relative to
 MULTILEVEL TRAINING TRANSFER
training missions, the transfer performance episode in our study
required participants to handle three specific aspects of adaptabil-
ity discussed by Pulakos et al. (2000): (a) handle emergencies or
crisis situation (e.g., quickly analyze plausible strategies when
realizing ammunition is lower than expected or when mission time
limit neared), (b) handle work stress (e.g., maintain composure
while escaping antiaircraft artillery), and (c) deal with uncertain
and unpredictable work situations (e.g., adjust mission plans when
realizing the aircraft was damaged or after certain ammunition had
depleted).
Both individual-level (e.g., Ford et al., 1998; Kozlowski et al.,
2001) and team-level (e.g., Marks et al., 2000, 2002) studies have
examined adaptive performance. However, most research to date
has studied either individual adaptive performance or team adap-
tive performance (cf. Chen et al., 2002). Studying adaptive post-
training performance at both the individual and team levels simul-
taneously can uncover similar and distinct predictors of adaptive
performance at different levels. If similar training-related predic-
tors account for adaptive performance at both levels, it would
suggest team training programs should attempt to develop similar
knowledge, skills, and other characteristics at both levels. In con-
trast, finding differences across levels may suggest team training
programs should focus on developing unique or complementary
individual and team competencies.
It is interesting that individual- and team-level frameworks for
studying training transfer are both similar and complementary. At
the individual level, Baldwin and Ford (1988) have proposed that
trainee characteristics (e.g., ability, personality), the work environ-
ment (e.g., supervisory support), and learning outcomes help pre-
dict individual differences in transfer performance. At the team
level of analysis, the input–process– output (IPO) framework of
team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro,
2001) suggests that team training, as well as other “inputs” (e.g.,
team composition), contribute to team effectiveness, albeit through
their impacts on team processes. There are two key differences
between individual- and team-level frameworks of training trans-
fer. First, the team-level IPO framework assumes that team pro-
cesses, such as coordination, explain how training outcomes affect
team transfer performance, whereas Baldwin and Ford’s
individual-level framework does not consider the possibility that
posttraining self-regulation processes could help explain the influ-
ences of training outcomes on transfer of training performance.
Second, as we summarize below, the role of different types of
training outcomes in training transfer is considered more thor-
oughly in individual-level models of training and transfer than in
team-level models.
Training Outcomes
Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993) have proposed a training out-
comes taxonomy, involving three types of learning outcomes: (a)
knowledge (i.e., cognitive learning outcomes), (b) skills (i.e., be-
havioral learning outcomes), and (c) affect (i.e., affective and
motivational learning outcomes). In line with Kraiger et al.’s
taxonomy, three of the most widely studied individual-level train-
ing outcomes are declarative and procedural knowledge (i.e., in-
formation about what and how to do certain trained tasks), skill
acquisition (i.e., capability to actually do certain trained tasks), and
self-efficacy (i.e., belief in one’s capability to accomplish success-
829
fully certain trained tasks; e.g., Colquitt et al., 2000; Ford et al.,
1998; Kozlowski et al., 2001).
Recently, two individual-level studies (Ford et al., 1998; Koz-
lowski et al., 2001) tested the extent to which different training
outcomes uniquely predict posttraining adaptive performance.
These studies used a computer-based individual decision-making
task, which required individuals to work on transfer tasks in more
novel and complex environments than the training environment. In
both studies, declarative knowledge, self-efficacy, and skill ac-
quired during training uniquely and positively predicted posttrain-
ing adaptive performance, even when individual differences (aca-
demic ability and goal orientation) and various training and
learning strategies (e.g., self-regulation activity during learning,
extent to which the training program was composed of identical
elements) were controlled. These results were also corroborated by
a recent meta-analysis conducted by Colquitt et al. (2000). Thus,
there is considerable evidence that cognitive, affective–
motivational, and behavioral aspects of learning all contribute to
individual-level adaptive performance. However, the specific
mechanisms linking training outcomes and individual adaptive
performance have remained largely unexplored.
At the team level, training researchers have focused primarily on
shared knowledge (or shared mental models) and collective effi-
cacy as predictors of posttraining team adaptive performance (e.g.,
Marks, 1999; Marks et al., 2000, 2002; Mathieu, Heffner, Good-
win, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Shared mental models refer
to shared knowledge organization and/or structure among team
members (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Collective efficacy is a
group- or team-level analog of self-efficacy, reflecting “a group’s
shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments”
(Bandura, 1997, p. 477). However, team research has shown that
team processes, such as coordination and backup behaviors, fully
mediate the impact of training outcomes on adaptive performance
(e.g., Marks et al., 2000, 2002; Mathieu et al., 2000). Also, team
studies generally have focused on one type of training outcome,
but have yet to consider multiple training outcomes in combina-
tion. Nonetheless, Salas and Cannon-Bowers (1997) have pro-
posed that the training outcome taxonomy developed by Kraiger et
al. (1993) should also apply to teams. Specifically, in addition to
shared mental models and collective efficacy, role-specific knowl-
edge of team members and the teams’ collective skill should
contribute to team adaptive performance.
In this study, individual-level training outcomes included role
knowledge (i.e., knowledge regarding one’s role in the team),
self-efficacy (i.e., one’s belief in his or her capability to perform
his or her particular role in the team), and individual skill (i.e.,
one’s demonstrated capability to perform his or her particular
role). At the team level, training outcomes included team knowl-
edge, collective efficacy, and team skill. We conceptualized team
knowledge as a compositional variable based on the aggregation of
role knowledge to the team level—that is, it involves the extent to
which teams are composed of individuals who are knowledgeable
about their individual roles. Bliese (2000) has noted that aggre-
gating an individual construct to the group level results in a new
construct that is both similar to and different from the individual-
level construct (see also Chen et al., 2004). Thus, role and team
knowledge are not entirely isomorphic, yet both capture cognitive
outcomes of training.
830 CHEN, THOMAS, AND WALLACE
Collective efficacy, on the other hand, is based on a referent-
shift composition model (Chan, 1998) in that it involves a shared
belief among team members regarding their capability to perform
team, not individual, tasks. Research has suggested that self- and
collective efficacy beliefs are isomorphic constructs— both reflect
perceived competence, and both are hypothesized to drive perfor-
mance through motivational processes (Chen & Bliese, 2002;
Chen et al., 2002, 2004). Finally, team skill is similar to individual
skill, as it captures the demonstrated collective capability of the
team to perform its team tasks. In particular, both individuals and
teams can differ on how well they execute trained tasks, and team
training programs should develop such competencies at both the
individual and team levels of analysis (Kozlowski et al., 1999).
Regulation Processes
The work motivation literature has identified two main self-
regulation or motivational processes: goal choice and goal striving
(e.g., Kanfer, 1990; Mitchell & Daniels, 2003). These self-
regulation processes involve how people act and react in the
pursuit of goals. Specifically, goal choice involves the process of
deciding where and how to allocate task-related effort, whereas
goal striving has to do with actually allocating and sustaining
effort in the pursuit of goal accomplishment. Likewise, the liter-
ature on work teams has identified team-level processes that are
highly similar to the individual-level goal choice and goal striving
processes, namely action and transition processes (Marks et al.,
2001). Team transition processes involve the following interde-
pendent team activities: (a) mission analysis (i.e., interpretation
and evaluation of the team’s mission or task), (b) goal specification
(i.e., identification and prioritization of team goals and subgoals),
and (c) strategy formulation and planning (i.e., development of
particular courses of action for goal accomplishment). These tran-
sition activities are highly consistent with the individual-level goal
choice process. On the other hand, team action processes include
four different interdependent team activities, which are consistent
with the goal striving process: (a) monitoring progress toward
goals (i.e., assessing how the team does relative to its mission/task
goals), (b) system monitoring (i.e., tracking material resources and
environmental conditions as they relate to mission accomplish-
ment), (c) team monitoring and backup behaviors (i.e., assisting
team members in performing their task roles), and (d) coordination
(i.e., orchestrating the sequence and timing of interdependent actions).
A recent study by DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, and
Weichmann (2004) found evidence that the content and function of
self- and team regulation processes can be quite similar during
learning. However, it is still unclear how self-regulation processes
might operate in teams following training. According to Kozlow-
ski et al. (1996, 1999), as teams develop, the focus of self-
regulated activities shifts. During early phases of team develop-
ment, team members focus on learning their specific roles, but as
individuals compile into mature teams, the focus of individual
activities shifts to regulating collective team tasks. Hence, because
we focused on posttraining regulation processes, we conceptual-
ized goal choice as individual activities directed at helping the
team choose its goals and goal striving as individual activities
directed at helping the team accomplish its goals. Given the high
interdependence level among team members, goal choice and goal
striving are likely to be tightly coupled with team transition and
action processes, respectively. Still, goal choice and goal striving
are inherently individual-level constructs, reflecting the amount of
effort individual team members expend when working with other
team members on developing and executing team plans. Goal
choice and goal striving activities facilitate effective team regula-
tion, but they also enhance individual performance because mem-
bers’ roles are highly interdependent and development and execu-
tion of effective team plans can aid members’ own performance. In
contrast, team transition and action processes reflect team-level
processes (i.e., what the team as a collective does), rather than
individual-level contributions to these processes (i.e., what indi-
vidual members do).
Both individual- and team-level models of regulation processes
explicate that over time individuals and teams perform multiple
performance episodes (e.g., Marks et al., 2001; Mathieu & Button,
1992). For action teams, the notion of recurring performance
episodes is particularly explicit, as they perform collectively over
multiple and clearly differentiated performance episodes (e.g.,
combat flight missions, surgeries, rescue operations). What is
important is that goal choice and transition processes most often
take place prior to and/or in between performance episodes,
whereas goal striving and action processes occur during perfor-
mance episodes. Thus, we refer to transition and goal choice
processes as between-episodes processes and to action and goal
striving processes as within-episode processes. Research on action
teams has shown that cognitive and affective–motivational learn-
ing outcomes affect adaptive performance following training
through within-episode team processes, such as coordination and
backup behaviors (e.g., Marks, 1999; Marks et al., 2000, 2002;
Mathieu et al., 2000). However, we are aware of no research to
date that has examined the extent to which both within-episode and
between-episodes processes mediate the effects of different team
training outcomes on team adaptive performance. Moreover,
individual-level research has yet to examine the possible mediating
regulation processes linking training outcomes and adaptive
performance.
Hypotheses
Following Figure 1 and building on the discussion above, we
delineated specific hypotheses pertaining to the relationships
among training outcomes, posttraining regulation processes, and
adaptive performance at both the individual and team levels of
analysis. Given that several of the constructs in the model are not
entirely parallel (i.e., are similar, yet not isomorphic), we do not
position Figure 1 as a truly homologous model (cf. Chen, Bliese,
& Mathieu, in press; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Nonetheless, the
constructs in the model are sufficiently similar as to make mean-
ingful comparisons of relationships across levels. Moreover, test-
ing the similarity (or dissimilarity) of relationships across levels
can help uncover the extent to which the validity of these con-
structs is similar or different across levels.
Following Marks et al. (2001), at both levels of analysis, it was
expected that within-episode processes (i.e., goal striving activities
and action processes) would fully mediate the effects of between-
episodes processes (i.e., goal choice activities and transition pro-
cesses). Individual- and team-level research on goal setting, plan-
ning, and self-regulation has lent support for this theoretical
prediction, by showing that goals affect task performance through
allocation of on-task effort (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990; Wein-
 MULTILEVEL TRAINING TRANSFER
gart, 1992). Moreover, according to Wood and Locke (1990), the
direct relationship between goal setting and performance dimin-
ishes as task complexity increases. Thus, given that the transfer
task in the study was quite complex, it was more likely the effects
of between-episodes regulation processes (which involve setting
and prioritizing goals) would be entirely through within-episode
processes (which involve the actual execution and possible adap-
tation or modification of goals and strategies).
Hypothesis 1: At both the individual and team levels, post-
training within-episode regulation processes fully mediate the
relationships between posttraining between-episodes regula-
tion processes and posttraining adaptive performance.
The hypothesized model also suggests that self- and collective
efficacy beliefs relate similarly to adaptive performance across
levels. This is consistent with a study conducted by Chen et al.
(2002) and with meta-analyses that found that the average (“true”)
correlation between self-efficacy and individual performance (␳ ⫽
.38; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) is highly similar to the true
collective efficacy–team performance correlation (␳ ⫽ .39; Gully,
Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). Extending previous work,
however, one would expect that efficacy beliefs would predict
adaptive performance through the allocation of task-related effort
both prior to and during transfer performance periods. Bandura
(1997) reviewed research that showed that more efficacious indi-
viduals and groups tend to engage in more effective planning (i.e.,
goal choice and transition processes) and to allocate and persist in
more on-task effort when pursuing goals (i.e., goal striving and
action processes). In the training and transfer literature, several
authors have proposed that boosting trainees’ task-related efficacy
beliefs can help ensure that trainees choose to use and generalize
the knowledge and skill acquired in training during transfer peri-
ods (e.g., Ford et al., 1998; Kozlowski et al., 2001).
Hypothesis 2: At both the individual and team levels, post-
training between-episodes and within-episode regulation pro-
cesses fully mediate the relationships between efficacy beliefs
acquired during training and posttraining adaptive performance.
Finally, at both levels of analysis, knowledge and skills are
likely to positively predict regulation processes, at least in part
because they are positively associated with efficacy beliefs (e.g.,
Bandura, 1997; Ford et al., 1998; Kozlowski et al., 2001). Specif-
ically, trainees and teams who acquire higher levels of knowledge
and skill during training are likely to be more efficacious and to
have a stronger basis on which they can plan for and accomplish
effectively complex transfer tasks (e.g., Smith et al., 1997).
However, we expected that regulation processes would be more
likely to mediate the influences of team knowledge and skill on
team adaptive performance than the influences of individual
knowledge and skill on individual adaptive performances. Specif-
ically, team knowledge and skill cannot translate into team adap-
tive performance unless they enable team members to collectively
engage in effective team transition and action processes (cf. Hack-
man, 1987). According to Kozlowski et al. (1999), more adaptive
teams rely on their knowledge and skill to appropriately adjust
their interaction patterns (e.g., their coordination and communica-
tion patterns) to meet novel and complex environmental demands.
831
However, at the individual level, whereas knowledge and skill can
enable individuals to regulate more effectively when performing
complex tasks (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), they also enable
individuals to accomplish complex tasks more efficiently and even
automatically without requiring much conscious cognitive effort
(e.g., Anderson, 1983; Smith et al., 1997). Thus, although knowl-
edge and skill are expected to contribute to adaptive performance
at both the individual and the team levels, they do so more directly
at the individual level than the team level. Indeed, individual-level
research has found that knowledge and skill relate more strongly
and directly to adaptive performance (e.g., Ford et al., 1998;
Kozlowski et al., 2001) than similar team-level research has found
(Marks et al., 2000, 2002; Mathieu et al., 2000). We therefore
expected that knowledge and skill would relate to adaptive per-
formance both directly and indirectly (through self-regulation pro-
cesses) at the individual level, but only indirectly (through team
processes) at the team level.
Hypothesis 3a: At the individual level, posttraining between-
episodes and within-episode regulation processes partially
mediate the relationships of role knowledge and individual
skill acquired during training with posttraining adaptive
performance.
Hypothesis 3b: At the team level, posttraining between-
episodes and within-episode regulation processes fully medi-
ate the relationships of team knowledge and team skill ac-
quired during training with posttraining adaptive performance.
Method
Sample
We recruited 156 undergraduates, who performed in 78 two-person
teams, from a large Southeastern university. The sample was 74% men and
26% women, with an average age of 20 years (SD ⫽ 1.56). All participants
received extra course credit. To motivate transfer and adaptive perfor-
mance, members of the three highest scoring teams each received prizes
($50 gift certificates for members of the best-scoring team, $25 certificates
for members of the second-best-scoring team, and $15 certificates for
members of the third-best-scoring team).
Task Apparatus
We used flight simulator task (Longbow2, 1997) based on a low-fidelity
personal computer (PC) as our research platform. The software is a
computer-generated simulation program of the Apache attack helicopter.
The hardware included an IBM compatible PC equipped with a joystick
and video and audio recording equipment. A physical divider separated
players, and they communicated via microphone-equipped headsets. This
task environment is similar to that used by Marks et al. (2002; Experiment
1). However, their task was a three-player simulation, whereas our task was
a two-player simulation consisting of a pilot and a gunner. In each team,
the pilot was responsible for (a) flying the helicopter, (b) firing weapons,
and (c) escaping enemy antiaircraft fire, whereas the gunner’s roles in-
cluded (a) radar surveillance (e.g., identification of enemy or friendly
targets), (b) weapon selection and management, and (c) system monitoring
(e.g., monitoring helicopter damage). The task required teams to attack
primary and secondary enemy targets (e.g., tanks, armored vehicles) posi-
tioned along prespecified waypoints while avoiding antiaircraft artillery
and protecting friendly targets. The team task was highly interdependent.
For instance, to destroy enemy tanks the gunner had to identify the tank
correctly as a primary or secondary target, select the appropriate weapon,
832 CHEN, THOMAS, AND WALLACE
and aim the weapon such that the pilot could fire it accurately, whereas the
pilot had to appropriately position the helicopter and fire the weapon at the
most appropriate time.
Procedure
Sessions lasted approximately 3 hr and were conducted in three phases:
(a) role and team training, (b) a training evaluation session, and (c) a
transfer-of-training mission. Initially, participants were guided through a
90-min training program, which followed Kozlowski et al.’s (1999) theory
of team compilation. Specifically, participants first received an overview of
the task and watched an automated demonstration of the simulation. They
were then guided through a structured hands-on training program that
progressed from individual role training (i.e., pilot or gunner) to team
training. Throughout the various stages of training, we ensured that par-
ticipants could accomplish all critical individual and team tasks, which
were chosen on the basis of a thorough task analysis (cf. Tesluk, Zaccaro,
Marks, & Mathieu, 1997). When participants failed to accomplish a par-
ticular task, the experimenters coached them until they were able to
accomplish it before moving to training the next task. Although this
procedure ensured the participants reached a minimal level of task com-
petency needed for them to perform their individual roles and the team
task, there were differences in level of individual and team task mastery,
which we captured using measures of individual and team skills. The
training phase ended with teams playing a practice team mission, on the
basis of which individual and team skills were recorded.
At the conclusion of training, participants completed a survey containing
various training evaluation measures, including role-specific knowledge
tests and self- and collective efficacy measures. Finally, following a short
break, teams completed a transfer performance mission. The transfer
mission began by providing the pilot and gunner two separate “intelligence
reports,” which contained complementary pieces of information regarding
the mission (e.g., location and type of various enemy and friendly targets,
timing of movement of the various targets during the mission, information
about terrain and antiaircraft artillery.). Using the reports, teams were
instructed to take 10 min to plan for their mission. At the conclusion of the
planning session, we measured individual goal choice activities and team
transition processes. Following the administration of these short process
measures, the teams “flew” their 15-min transfer mission, at the end of
which we obtained measures of individual goal striving activities, team
action processes, and individual and team adaptive performance. It is
important to note that teams were trained and practiced in the same
environment throughout training and that environment was substantially
less complex than the transfer performance environment—it included
fewer and less aggressive antiaircraft artillery, fewer targets, shorter way-
point routes, and easier terrain.
Measures
Knowledge. Separate 10-item multiple-choice tests were developed to
assess pilot and gunner role knowledge. Consistent with Ford et al. (1998)
and Kozlowski et al. (2001), items on these tests covered both declarative
knowledge (i.e., knowledge about key aspects of their roles and equipment)
and procedural and strategic knowledge (i.e., knowledge about how best to
approach certain role-related situations, such as which weapon the gunner
should select when approaching certain targets or what tactics the pilot
should use when eliminating specific targets). The pilot and gunner com-
pleted only the test for their respective role. Four subject matter experts
(SMEs) reviewed an initial version of the test, and based on their com-
ments, the tests were modified by the authors and later judged by the SMEs
to capture the main content domains of the roles. Participants were given
1 point for each correct answer; scores on the tests could range between 0
and 10. We aggregated knowledge to the team level using the minimum
(i.e., worst) individual score in teams, as the task was highly interdepen-
dent and consistent with a conjunctive team task (Steiner, 1972) in that an
unknowledgeable member could have greatly (and adversely) affected
team performance (cf. Beersma et al., 2003; Moynihan & Peterson, 2001).
Efficacy beliefs. On the basis of a task analysis of our team simulation,
we identified nine key pilot tasks (e.g., maintaining optimal altitude, using
chain gun), eight key gunner tasks (e.g., identifying and differentiating
targets, selecting weapons), and six key collective tasks for the team as
whole (e.g., following waypoints, positioning the helicopter for targeting).
Four SMEs reviewed these tasks and sorted the tasks as being either
“primarily a pilot task,” “primarily a gunner task,” or “primarily a team
task.” These tasks were then used in the self-efficacy and collective
efficacy measures. The pilot and gunner self-efficacy measures asked them
to “rate how confident you are in your ability to successfully and consis-
tently accomplish each of the following [pilot or gunner] tasks” (1 ⫽ not
at all confident, 5 ⫽ extremely confident). The collective efficacy measure
asked both the pilot and gunner to “rate how confident your team is in its
ability to successfully and consistently accomplish each of the following
team tasks” (1 ⫽ not at all confident, 5 ⫽ extremely confident). The
internal consistency reliability (alpha) estimates were .57 for pilot self-
efficacy, .74 for gunner self-efficacy, and .72 for collective efficacy. The
rather low reliability estimates were expected given the heterogeneous
nature of the tasks; however, the low reliability may have attenuated
relationships involving efficacy beliefs.
For each team, average collective efficacy responses of the pilot and the
gunner were aggregated to the team level. Justifying the aggregation of this
referent-shift compositional model measure, we found that intermember
agreement—average rwg(j), using a uniform expected variance distribu-
tion—was .88, indicating that members shared their collective efficacy
beliefs (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). Moreover, intraclass correlations
(ICCs) provided evidence for sufficient intermember reliability, ICC(1) ⫽
.49, ICC(2) ⫽ .66; F(77, 78) ⫽ 2.95, p ⬍ .05. ICC(1) indicates the
percentage of variance in ratings due to team membership, whereas ICC(2)
indicates the reliability of differences between team means (Bliese, 2000).
Skill and adaptive performance. On the basis of the task analysis we
conducted, we developed Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
for each position (pilot and gunner; 1 ⫽ hardly any skill, 5 ⫽ complete
skill). The pilot BARS included the following dimensions: (a) flying the
helicopter, (b) firing weapons, and (c) escaping enemy antiaircraft fire. The
gunner BARS consisted of: (a) radar surveillance, (b) weapon selection and
management, and (c) system monitoring. These BARS measures were
similar to those used in Chen et al. (2002, Lab Sample). Three SMEs were
trained to use the BARS and reached high levels of agreement, average
rwg(j) ⫽ .94 and .89) and adequate levels of reliability for pilot and gunner
ratings, respectively, ICC(1) ⫽ .74, .73, ICC(2) ⫽ .90, .89; F(4, 10) ⫽
9.73, 9.20, p ⬍ .05. Besides the five study sessions used to evaluate
interrater agreement and reliability, one SME rated pilot and gunner
performance in each study session. Confirmatory factor analyses (n ⫽ 78),1
conducted separately on ratings rendered following the practice and trans-
fer missions, confirmed two dimensions corresponding to pilot perfor-
mance (␣s ⫽ .87 and .85 for the practice and transfer missions) and gunner
performance (␣s ⫽ .75 and .78 for the practice and transfer missions).
Performance ratings following the practice mission were used as individual
skill measures, whereas ratings obtained following the transfer mission
were used as measures of individual adaptive performance.
1
All confirmatory factor analyses we report herein were conducted
using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). In each analysis, the fit of a
theoretical measurement model (e.g., a two-factor model) was compared
with the fit of a single-factor alternative model. Support for the measures
was based on finding that the theoretical model fit the data well and
significantly better than the alternative models as well as on detecting high
(⬎.70) and significant factor loadings.
 MULTILEVEL TRAINING TRANSFER
Team scores on the practice mission were used to index team skill,
whereas team scores on the transfer mission measured team adaptive
performance. In both practice and transfer missions, team performance
score was based on the extent to which the team (a) eliminated primary
enemy targets (worth 20 points each), (b) eliminated secondary enemy
targets (worth 10 points each), (c) remained alive (scored as two times the
actual minutes the team survived during the mission), (d) remained un-
damaged at the end of the mission (undamaged and alive ⫽ 30 points,
damaged and alive ⫽ 20 points, destroyed ⫽ 0 points), and (e) avoided
elimination of friendly targets (20 points were subtracted for each elimi-
nated friendly target). Scores were obtained from a computer screen
following the mission; maximum possible score was 260 points in the
practice mission and 410 points in the transfer mission.
Regulation processes. We developed five items to measure individual
goal choice activities and 10 items to measure individual goal striving
activities (the items are listed in the Appendix). The items were based on
our conceptualization of goal choice and goal striving as individual activ-
ities directed at assisting the team to choose and execute its goals and use
examples of transition and action activities provided by Marks et al.
(2001). Following the planning mission and prior to performing the transfer
mission, we presented participants with the goal choice items and asked
them to “rate the extent to which you personally engaged in each of the
following behaviors during this last planning session,” and following the
transfer mission, we gave them the goal striving items and asked them to
“rate the extent to which you personally engaged in each of the following
behaviors during this last flight mission” (1 ⫽ never, 5 ⫽ constantly).
Confirmatory factor analyses in LISREL (n ⫽ 156) confirmed that the
items yielded two factors corresponding to goal choice (␣ ⫽ .73) and goal
striving (␣ ⫽ .81).
Using BARS developed by Cobb and Mathieu (2003), SMEs rated the
extent to which the teams effectively executed the three transition pro-
cesses (i.e., mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy formulation
and planning) and four action processes (i.e., monitoring progress toward
goals, systems monitoring, team monitoring and backup behavior, and
coordination) delineated by Marks et al. (2001; 1 ⫽ hardly any skill, 5 ⫽
complete skill). In all but five study sessions, one of three SMEs rated
transition and action processes. Data obtained in five study sessions in
which all three SMEs rated the team processes indicated sufficient levels of
interrater agreement and reliability. Specifically, for transition processes
ratings, average rwg(j) ⫽ .89, ICC(1) ⫽ .33; F(4, 10) ⫽ 2.50, p ⫽ .10, and
ICC(2) ⫽ .60. For action processes ratings, average rwg(j) ⫽ .97, ICC(1) ⫽
.72; F(4, 10) ⫽ 8.65, p ⬍ .05, and ICC(2) ⫽ .88. Confirmatory factor
analyses in LISREL (n ⫽ 78) supported the distinctiveness of transition
processes (␣ ⫽ .89) from action processes (␣ ⫽ .89). Further supporting
the validity of the regulation measures, average reports of individual goal
choice activities in teams correlated .34 ( p ⬍ .05) with SME ratings of
team transition processes, and average reports of individual goal striving
activities in teams correlated .38 ( p ⬍ .05) with SME ratings of team action
processes.
Analyses
Analyses were conducted using the Nonlinear and Linear Mixed Effects
program for S-PLUS and R (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000). We estimated
individual-level relationships using random coefficient modeling, which
provides the correct parameter estimates and significance tests for the
nested individual-level data in our study (Bliese, 2002), and team-level
relationships using ordinary least squares regression. At each level, we
conducted hierarchical mediated regression analyses, following the ap-
proach proposed by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998). We also tested
mediated (indirect) effects using Sobel’s (1982) test, which MacKinnon,
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) and Shrout and Bolger
(2002) suggest provides a more powerful test for mediation. Given that we
were interested in comparing individual- and team-level results, it was
833
important to ensure the estimates obtained in the analyses were compara-
ble. Therefore, because different metrics were used in some of the
individual- and team-level measures, we standardized all measures within
their respective levels, such that parameter estimates essentially reflected
comparable standardized (i.e., “beta”) coefficients (see Chen et al., 2002, in
press).
Results
The individual- and team-level correlations are provided in
Table 1. As expected, skill measures were related to efficacy
beliefs at both the individual and team levels. However, whereas
role knowledge significantly related to individual skill, team
knowledge did not relate to team skill. Also, although knowledge
related similarly to efficacy beliefs at both levels, the relationship
was significant at the individual level, but not at the team level. In
addition, the correlations of efficacy beliefs with adaptive perfor-
mance were highly similar across levels, whereas the correlations
of knowledge and skill with adaptive performance were substan-
tially larger at the individual level than at the team level. Finally,
the correlations of within-episode (i.e., goal striving and action)
processes with adaptive performance were significant, whereas the
correlations of between- episodes processes (goal choice and tran-
sition processes) with adaptive performance were lower and only
significant at the individual level.
Hypotheses Tests
We first examined the extent to which the independent variables
(i.e., training outcomes) predicted the mediators (i.e., posttraining
regulation processes). Table 2 summarizes the individual-level
random coefficient modeling analyses of goal choice and team-
level ordinary least squares regression analyses of transition pro-
cesses. Results indicated that self-efficacy only marginally ( p ⬍
.10) predicted goal choice activities, whereas collective efficacy
significantly predicted transition processes, and knowledge and
skill did not predict goal choice activities or transition processes.
However, when regressing goal choice activities only on self-
efficacy, self-efficacy was a significant predictor, estimate ⫽ .18,
t(77) ⫽ 2.30, p ⬍ .05. Thus, between-episodes processes were
only likely to mediate the relationships between efficacy beliefs
and adaptive performance.
Results from individual- and team-level analyses of within-
episode processes are summarized in Table 3. The individual-level
analyses revealed that self-efficacy and goal choice activities, but
not role knowledge and individual skill, uniquely and positively
predicted goal striving activities. Also, the introduction of goal
choice into the equation in a second step reduced only slightly the
self-efficacy estimate. The first step of the team-level analyses
showed that collective efficacy and team knowledge, but not team
skill, uniquely and positively predicted action processes. The ad-
dition of transition processes at the second step reduced the influ-
ences of both team knowledge and collective efficacy on action
processes, but collective efficacy remained a significant predictor.
Thus, the results summarized in Tables 2 and 3 suggest that, at
both levels of analysis, (a) efficacy beliefs predicted within-
episode processes more strongly than between-episodes processes,
(b) between-episodes processes predicted within-episode pro-
cesses, (c) between-episodes processes partially mediated the in-
fluences of efficacy beliefs on within-episode processes, and (d)
834 CHEN, THOMAS, AND WALLACE

Table 1
Individual-Level and Team-Level Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Individual level (n ⫽ 156)

a

1. Role knowledge 0.73 0.14 —

2. Self-efficacy 3.64 0.53 .14* —
3. Individual skill 2.78 0.88 .27** .20** —
4. Goal choice activities 3.35 0.69 .09 .14* ⫺.03 —
5. Goal striving activities 3.45 0.63 .07 .45** .17* .33** —
6. Individual adaptive performance 2.78 0.88 .41** .30** .62** .13* .31** —
Team level (n ⫽ 78)
1. Team knowledge 0.66 0.13 —
2. Collective efficacy 3.53 0.52 .15 —
3. Team skill 110.79 84.91 .22 .61** —
4. Transition processes 3.27 0.90 .19 .34** .20 —
5. Action processes 3.09 0.80 .27* .46** .20 .51** —
6. Team adaptive performance 162.05 90.86 .20 .34** .19 .10 .51** —
a
Within-team (individual-level) correlations are reported.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

knowledge and skills generally did not predict posttraining regu- .05, and, likewise, the indirect effect of transition processes on
lation processes (with the exception of a marginal influence of team performance through action processes (.20) was statistically
team knowledge on team action processes). significant, z ⫽ 2.72, p ⬍ .05. Thus, these results provided support
Recall that Hypothesis 1 suggests that within-episode processes for Hypothesis 1.
mediate the effects of between-episodes processes on performance Hypothesis 2 states that efficacy beliefs relate to adaptive per-
at both levels of analysis. Table 4 provides the individual- and formance through between-episodes and within-episode processes
team-level analyses of adaptive performance. In the second step of at both levels. As shown in Table 4, efficacy beliefs related to
the analyses, neither goal choice activities nor transition processes performance over and above knowledge and skill at the team but
predicted performance. Further, at both levels, within-episode reg- not the individual level. Table 4 also suggests that the unique
ulation processes (i.e., goal striving activities and action processes) influences of collective efficacy beliefs on performance dropped
positively predicted adaptive performance (see Step 3 in the anal-
once introducing the action (within-episode) regulation processes
yses). The significant negative influence of transition processes on
(Step 3), but not when introducing transition (between-episodes)
team adaptive performance in the final step of the team-level
processes (Step 2). These results suggest that, at the team level,
analyses seems to be due to suppression given transition processes
within-episode processes, more so than between-episodes pro-
related to action processes but not team performance (see Table 1).
Further, Sobel’s (1982) test indicated that the indirect effect of cesses, mediated the relationships between collective efficacy be-
goal choice activities on individual performance through goal liefs and performance.
striving activities (.05) was statistically significant, z ⫽ 2.21, p ⬍ Although the results summarized in Table 4 found evidence that
within-episode regulation processes mediated the efficacy—per-
formance relationship at the team but not the individual level, there
Table 2 were significant indirect effects for efficacy beliefs on adaptive
Individual-Level and Team-Level Analyses of Between-Episodes performance through within-episode processes at both the individ-
Processes ual level (indirect effect of self-efficacy through goal striving
activities ⫽ .04, z ⫽ 2.05, p ⬍ .05) and the team level (indirect
Parameter effect of collective efficacy through action processes ⫽ .22, z ⫽
Level and model estimate SE df t R2
2.59, p ⬍ .05). In contrast, the indirect effects of efficacy beliefs
Individual-level resultsa on adaptive performance through between-episodes processes
Role knowledge .05 .08 75 0.58 were nonsignificant at both the individual level (indirect effect of
Self-efficacy .15 .08 75 1.76
Individual skill .09 .09 75 1.05 .00
self-efficacy through goal choice activities ⫽ .01, z ⫽ 1.29, ns)
Team-level resultsb and the team level (indirect effect of collective efficacy through
Team knowledge .15 .11 74 1.33 transition processes ⫽ ⫺.01, z ⫽ ⫺0.31, ns). The apparent incon-
Collective efficacy .35* .14 74 2.53 sistent findings summarized above with respect to the mediated
Team skill ⫺.04 .14 74 ⫺0.29 .14*
efficacy—performance relationship at the individual level are in
Note. Individual-level results are from a random coefficient modeling line with Monte Carlo studies conducted by MacKinnon et al.
analysis (n ⫽ 156); team-level results are from an ordinary least squares (2002), which showed that tests of indirect effects are more pow-
regression analysis (n ⫽ 78).
a erful in detecting mediation than Kenny et al.’s (1998) hierarchical
Dependent variable is goal choice activities. b Dependent variable is
transition processes. regression mediation tests. In sum, these results partially supported
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. Hypothesis 2, as the relationships of efficacy beliefs with adaptive
 MULTILEVEL TRAINING TRANSFER 835

Table 3
Individual-Level and Team-Level Analyses of Within-Episode Processes

Parameter
Level and step estimate SE df t R2 ⌬R2

Individual-level resultsa
Step 1
Role knowledge .02 .08 75 0.29
Self-efficacy .33** .08 75 4.27
Individual skill .09 .09 75 1.08 .18** .18**
Step 2
Role knowledge .01 .07 74 0.10
Self-efficacy .27** .07 74 3.71
Individual skill .06 .08 74 0.79
Goal choice activities .36** .07 74 5.01 .24** .06**
Team-level resultsb
Step 1
Team knowledge .23* .10 74 2.24
Collective efficacy .54** .13 74 4.28
Team skill ⫺.18 .13 74 ⫺1.45 .27** .27**
Step 2
Team knowledge .17 .10 73 1.83
Collective efficacy .41** .12 73 3.39
Team skill ⫺.17 .12 73 ⫺1.45
Transition processes .37** .10 73 3.78 .39** .12**

Note. Individual-level results are from a random coefficient modeling analysis (n ⫽ 156); team-level results
are from an ordinary least squares regression analysis (n ⫽ 78).
a
Dependent variable is goal striving activities. b Dependent variable is action processes.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

performance were mediated through within-episode processes but
not between-episodes processes, and did so more clearly at the
team than the individual level of analysis.
Hypothesis 3a states that, at the individual-level of analysis,
goal choice and goal striving only partially mediate the relation-
ships of role knowledge and individual skill with adaptive perfor-
mance. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, individual knowledge and
skill did not predict the individual regulation processes, precluding
possible indirect effects. However, role knowledge and individual
skill uniquely and positively predicted individual adaptive perfor-
mance, even when including self-regulation processes in the model
(see Table 4). These results provided partial support for Hypoth-
esis 3a: Role knowledge and individual skill directly and uniquely
predicted adaptive performance, but self-regulation processes did
not partially mediate these relationships.
Finally, according to Hypothesis 3b, team knowledge and team
skill relate to team adaptive performance entirely through
between-episodes and within-episode team processes. As ex-
pected, team knowledge and skill did not directly predict team
performance (see Table 4, Step 1). However, team knowledge did
not relate to team transition processes and only marginally ( p ⬍
.10) related to team action processes, and team skill did not relate
to either team transition or action processes (Tables 2 & 3). Also,
the indirect effect of team knowledge on team performance
through team action processes (.12) was statistically significant,
z ⫽ 1.97, p ⬍ .05. Thus, Hypothesis 3b was only weakly sup-
ported, in that team action processes mediated the team
knowledge–team performance relationship.
Additional Analyses
Although team skill did not directly relate to any of the pro-
cesses, it did relate significantly to collective efficacy, which in
turn related to team adaptive performance through team action
processes. Indeed, the indirect effect of team skill on action pro-
cesses through collective efficacy (.25) was significant, z ⫽ 3.02,
p ⬍ .05, and the indirect effect of team skill on team performance
through collective efficacy and action processes (.16) was margin-
ally significant, z ⫽ 1.68, p ⬍ .10. Thus, although not hypothe-
sized, team skill had an even less direct relationship with team
performance through collective efficacy and team action
processes.
Discussion
This is the first study attempting to test the relationships among
multiple training outcomes, posttraining regulation processes, and
adaptive performance at the individual and team levels of analysis
simultaneously. Figure 2 provides a summary of the results across
all analyses. The results indicated both similar and different
patterns of relationships across levels of analysis, with impor-
tant implications for the training, motivation, and work team
literatures.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
In line with Kraiger et al. (1993) and Salas and Cannon-Bowers
(1997), our results support the notion that multiple aspects of
learning are critical at both the individual and team levels. As such,
training programs directed at developing adaptive teams should
ensure that both individual team members and the team as a whole
acquire the knowledge, skills, and efficacy beliefs that enable
adaptability. However, the relative importance of training out-
comes differs across levels. Specifically, knowledge and skill
directly enable individual adaptive performance but, in accordance
836 CHEN, THOMAS, AND WALLACE

Table 4
Individual-Level and Team-Level Analyses of Adaptive Performance

Parameter
Level and step estimate SE df t R2 ⌬R2

Individual-level resultsa
Step 1
Role knowledge .15** .05 75 2.88
Self-efficacy .08 .05 75 1.52
Individual skill .57** .07 75 8.62 .46** .46**
Step 2
Role knowledge .14* .05 74 2.76
Self-efficacy .06 .05 74 1.23
Individual skill .57** .07 74 8.67
Goal choice activities .10 .05 74 1.92 .46** .00
Step 3
Role knowledge .14* .05 73 2.82
Self-efficacy .02 .05 73 0.30
Individual skill .55** .06 73 8.57
Goal choice activities .05 .05 73 0.98
Goal striving activities .15* .06 73 2.50 .47** .01
Team-level resultsb
Step 1
Team knowledge .16 .11 74 1.41
Collective efficacy .35* .14 74 2.57
Team skill ⫺.06 .14 74 ⫺0.46 .14* .14*
Step 2
Team knowledge .16 .11 73 1.44
Collective efficacy .36* .14 73 2.54
Team skill ⫺.06 .14 73 ⫺0.47
Transition processes ⫺.04 .12 73 ⫺0.34 .14* .00
Step 3
Team knowledge .07 .10 72 0.66
Collective efficacy .15 .14 72 1.04
Team skill .03 .13 72 0.20
Transition processes ⫺.24* .12 72 ⫺2.08
Action processes .54** .13 72 4.30 .31** .17**

Note. Individual-level results are from a random coefficient modeling analysis (n ⫽ 156); team-level results
are from an ordinary least squares regression analysis (n ⫽ 78).
a
Dependent variable is individual performance. b Dependent variable is team performance.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

with the IPO framework, more weakly and indirectly enable team
adaptability, through their relationships with collective efficacy
and team regulation processes. In contrast, whereas the bivariate
relationship of posttraining efficacy beliefs with adaptive perfor-
mance was similar across levels, the importance of efficacy beliefs
relative to knowledge and skill was greater at the team level of
analysis, in which collective efficacy strongly related to posttrain-
ing regulation processes and helped link team skill to team regu-
lation processes.
The inconsistent findings across levels pertaining to the influ-
ences of knowledge and skill on adaptive performance were ex-
pected on the basis of previous team and training literatures.
However, there are two additional plausible explanations for the
different findings detected across levels. First, it is possible that the
level of team task mastery at the end of training was inferior to the
level of individual task mastery, which resulted in the lower
team-level relationships between the knowledge and skill mea-
sures and team adaptive performance (cf. Smith et al., 1997).
Indeed, all else being equal, it takes longer to compile expert teams
than expert individuals (Kozlowski et al., 1999), and so results
could have differed if the training program was spread over a
longer period of time, allowing the teams to master their task
better. Second, we used different measurement approaches to
capture knowledge, skill, and adaptive performance across levels,
and these differences might have accounted (at least in part) for the
different findings across levels. However, it is worth noting that
several similar relationships were still detected with other con-
structs (e.g., efficacy beliefs, within-episode processes, and per-
formance) that were measured differently across levels. Undoubt-
edly, more research is needed to test whether knowledge and skill
relate differently to adaptive performance across levels irrespec-
tive of the level of task mastery and measurement approaches.
The results also extended theories of motivation. Specifically,
consistent with DeShon et al. (2004), there were similarities in the
relationships among efficacy beliefs, regulation processes, and
performance across levels, despite the use of vastly different
measurement approaches at each level. At both levels, efficacy
beliefs and between-episodes processes related to adaptive perfor-
mance through within-episode regulation processes. These results
are consistent with social– cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) and
goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990), according to which
efficacy beliefs, goals, and strategies translate into performance
 MULTILEVEL TRAINING TRANSFER
Figure 2. Summary of results from hypotheses tests. Arrows indicate hypothesized paths supported in the study.
through effort and persistence at both the individual and team
levels. However, it is still unclear whether the nature of relation-
ships among efficacy beliefs, effort, and performance differ over
time, as suggested by recent research conducted by Vancouver,
Thompson, and Williams (2000). For instance, it is possible that
over time successful individuals and teams become overconfident,
and therefore their efficacy beliefs no longer lead to higher sub-
sequent effort and performance.
Nonetheless, in line with DeShon et al. (2004) and Marks et al.
(2001), the results provide initial support for the generalizability of
the goal choice and goal striving concepts to the team level of
analysis, thus allowing greater integration between theories of
individual and team motivation. It is important to note that DeShon
et al. (2004) found similar relationships among self- and team
regulation processes during training, whereas our study replicated
their findings in a posttraining environment. In that sense, these
two studies have taken initial steps toward redressing the paucity
of multilevel research on motivation in and of teams (cf. Kozlow-
ski & Bell, 2003). However, additional theory development and
research are needed to uncover whether and why motivational
processes are similar or different across levels. For instance, fol-
lowing Kozlowski et al.’s (1999) theory of team compilation, it
would be interesting to study whether, as work teams develop, the
focus of self-regulated activities actually shifts from individual to
team processes and outcomes, and whether individually focused
versus team-focused regulation activities contribute to individual
effectiveness differently at different stages of team development
(e.g., in learning vs. transfer).
Practically speaking, these results suggest that motivational
interventions directed at individuals should target the same moti-
837
vational processes as motivational interventions directed at teams.
In particular, boosting self-efficacy beliefs is likely to improve
individual motivation and performance much like boosting teams’
collective efficacy is likely to improve team motivation and per-
formance. In addition, the finding that posttraining motivational
processes helped explain (at least in part) the relationships between
training outcomes and adaptive performance suggests that post-
training interventions directed at facilitating training transfer in
teams should attempt to impact these processes. For instance, to
facilitate adaptive performance, team leaders should ensure that
members of their team engage in effective regulation processes
(e.g., by helping the team develop and monitor the attainment of
performance strategies), particularly when the team performs in
complex and dynamic environments (see Kozlowski et al., 1996).
However, factors contributing to self-efficacy may not necessarily
affect collective efficacy, and vice versa. Indeed, Chen and Bliese
(2002) found that leadership climate more strongly predicts col-
lective efficacy than self-efficacy, whereas experience, psycholog-
ical strain, and role clarity more strongly predict self-efficacy than
collective efficacy. As such, researchers should strive to uncover
both unique and similar means of enabling teams and individual
team members to regulate effectively in complex and dynamic
environments.
Limitations and Future Research
Several limitations of this research should be noted. First, this
study was conducted in a laboratory, which may limit the gener-
alizability of the findings. Furthermore, the results may not gen-
eralize to teams with more than two members. Generalizability is
838 CHEN, THOMAS, AND WALLACE
also limited in light of the focus on one particular type of team
(i.e., the action team) and given that we only focused on one
transfer performance episode, which was close in time to the end
of training (i.e., near transfer). However, our aim was primarily to
test a theoretical multilevel nomological network, as opposed to
modeling an actual real-world environment (Driskell & Salas,
1992). Furthermore, following Marks (2000) recommendations,
we took several steps to increase the realism and external validity
of our study. Specifically, the simulation we used mimicked the
reality of actual flight teams by (a) ensuring that participants
actually believed they were a part of an interdependent team, (b)
designing positions and interpositional relationships that closely
matched real-world flight teams, and (c) creating an environment
that required the same theoretical processes that drive effective-
ness in real-world settings. Moreover, the transfer episode was
developed to capture key theoretical aspects underlying adaptive
performance in work environments.
Second, although we captured cognitive, affective–motivational,
and behavioral aspects of learning, we did not measure all possible
aspects of these important training outcomes. In particular, we did
not include measures of knowledge structures, or mental models,
which have been proposed to be important training outcomes
driving individual and team adaptive performance (e.g., Kozlowski
et al., 2001; Kraiger et al., 1993; Marks et al., 2000, 2002; Mathieu
et al., 2000). However, researchers have focused on somewhat
different mental models constructs at the individual and team
levels of analysis. At the individual level, mental models involve
knowledge coherence, or the extent to which the relatedness
among pairs of concepts reflects a consistent structure (e.g., Koz-
lowski et al., 2001). On the other hand, team mental models reflect
the intermember similarity or sharedenss in knowledge structures
(i.e., a dispersion construct; cf. Chan, 1998). Several authors have
noted that dispersion team-level constructs, such as shared or team
mental models, capture qualitatively different constructs from their
individual-level analogues (Chen et al., 2004; Kozlowski & Klein,
2000). It is interesting though, despite the fact that we operation-
alized team knowledge differently from the team mental models
literature (i.e., as an additive, as opposed to dispersion, composi-
tional model), that the obtained relationships of team knowledge
with action processes and team performance closely matched the
relationships obtained between team mental models and these
outcomes in previous research (cf. Marks et al., 2000, 2002;
Mathieu et al., 2000).
Finally, the use of different measurement approaches to capture
the focal constructs across levels was a limitation, particularly with
respect to our ability to appropriately test homology (i.e., equiva-
lent relationships) across levels. For instance, some might argue
that performance ratings used to capture individual adaptive per-
formance may not capture the same construct as does objective
performance output used to measure team adaptive performance.
Likewise, it is unclear whether self-ratings of self-regulation pro-
cesses are equivalent to expert ratings of team regulation pro-
cesses. On the one hand, the use of different measurement ap-
proaches across levels helps eliminate common method as an
explanation for the similarity in findings. Also, research has sug-
gested that objective and subjective measures of performance often
yield convergence validity (Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 1995; Wall et al., 2004). On the other hand, the use
different measurement approaches limited the extent to which we
can claim measures in this study were isomorphic, and therefore
we could not appropriately test whether relationships were homol-
ogous across levels of analysis (cf. Chen et al., 2002, in press).
Clearly, more research is needed to uncover whether different
measurement approaches can capture the same construct across
levels. For example, researchers should examine whether measur-
ing regulation processes using self-report measures at both levels
(e.g., as done in DeShon et al.’s, 2004, study) yields different
results as compared with measuring processes using self-report at
the individual level and expert ratings at the team level (as was
done in the present study). We believe tests of homology is a new
and exciting line of multilevel research, but the conceptual and
measurement preconditions that need to be met before testing such
multilevel models are still evolving (Chen et al., in press, 2004).
Meanwhile, along with additional multilevel research in the areas
of adaptability, motivation, and training, researchers need to ad-
vance stronger theories regarding whether constructs and relation-
ships among them are similar or different across levels.
Future research should attempt to replicate our findings using
different types of work teams (e.g., project, production, or man-
agement teams) of different sizes and in different contexts. It
would be interesting to test, for instance, whether training out-
comes and regulation processes account similarly for individual
and team adaptive performance in contexts of varying degrees of
complexity, novelty, and expertise. For instance, Kozlowski et al.
(2001) showed that self-efficacy is more predictive of individual
performance in complex, as opposed to simple, task environments.
Moreover, it is important to test whether our findings generalize to
teams with higher levels of expertise, who perform more complex
and ill-defined tasks that require higher levels of adaptability than
the level examined in this research (see Smith et al., 1997), as well
as to intact teams, such as Special Forces military teams or
top-management teams. Studying such teams requires a shift in
focus from near to far transfer, because these teams perform more
complex tasks than the one examined in our study, and do so over
repeated performance episodes beyond training (Sundstrom et al.,
1990). To ensure that they capture complex forms of adaptation,
researchers can directly measure adaptability requirements (see
Pulakos et al., 2000). However, researchers should also consider
adaptability requirements relative to the level of employee and
team expertise, as higher levels of expertise can enable individuals
and teams to adapt more effectively to higher levels of task
complexity and novelty (Smith et al., 1997). Thus, lower levels of
task complexity may require novices, but not experts, to be highly
adaptive.
Researchers should also examine whether leadership climate
and environmental complexity may impact the extent to which
certain training outcomes enable individuals and teams to be
adaptable (Kozlowski et al., 1996; Marks et al., 2000; Smith-
Jentsch et al., 2001). Moreover, although we did not consider their
impact in this study, other researchers have suggested that indi-
vidual differences (e.g., openness to experience, ability) and team
composition of these individual differences also enable adaptabil-
ity at the individual and team levels of analysis (e.g., LePine, 2003;
LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Such research should further
examine the extent to which posttraining regulation processes help
explain why and how leadership, individual differences, team
composition, and other inputs enhance or debilitate training trans-
fer and whether the same factors affect the relationships between
 MULTILEVEL TRAINING TRANSFER
training and transfer outcomes at the individual and team levels of
analysis. Ultimately, multilevel research that focuses on similari-
ties and differences across levels of analysis can improve our
understanding of the unique and similar factors and processes that
enable individual team members and teams as a whole to be highly
adaptive, as well as what managers, trainers, and consultants can
do to help them achieve it.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Baldwin, T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and
directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E.,
& Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance:
Toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
572-590.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 –
381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D. (2002). Using multilevel random coefficient modeling in
organizational research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in
measurement and data analysis (pp. 401– 445). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie,
S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective
measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psy-
chology, 48, 587– 605.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod-
els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership
in predicting self and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549 –556.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (in press). Conceptual framework
and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories
of homology. Organizational Research Methods.
Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for
conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F.
Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in
organizational behavior and processes (Vol. 3; pp. 273–303). Oxford,
United Kingdom: Elsevier.
Chen, G., Webber, S. S., Bliese, P. D., Mathieu, J. E., Payne, S. C., Born,
D. H., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Simultaneous examination of the ante-
cedents and consequences of efficacy beliefs at multiple levels of anal-
ysis. Human Performance, 15, 381– 409.
Cobb, M. G., & Mathieu, J. E. (2003, April). The impact of training and
environmental complexity on the effectiveness of multi-team systems.
Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative
theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years
of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678 –707.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., &
Weichmann, D. (2004). A multiple goal, multilevel model of feedback
effects on the regulation of individual and team performance in training.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035–1056.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Can you study real teams in contrived
settings? The value of small group research to understanding teams. In
839
R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance
(pp. 101–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E.
(1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and
practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 83, 218 –233.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A
meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdepen-
dence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819 – 832.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Introduction: Employee performance
in today’s organization. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The
changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation,
and development (pp. 1–18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation mod-
eling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 75–170).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities:
An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisi-
tion [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657– 689.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social
psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey, The handbook
of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233–265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Klimoski, R. J., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct
or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403– 437.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in
organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),
Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 12: Industrial and orga-
nizational psychology (pp. 333–375). New York: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M.,
& Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation
traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adapt-
ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85,
1–31.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-
Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effec-
tiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 14, 253–305.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999).
Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance
across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The
changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, per-
sonnel actions, and development (pp. 240 –292). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory
and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent pro-
cesses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and
new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (1997). An organizational systems
approach for the implementation and transfer of training. In J. K. Ford,
S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.),
Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 247–287).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive,
840 CHEN, THOMAS, AND WALLACE
skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods
of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.
LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and post change performance:
Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and
personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27–39.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing
task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Longbow2. (1997). [Computer software]. Coulsdon, England: Janes Com-
bat Simulations.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
Marks, M. (1999). A test of the impact of collective efficacy in routine and
novel performance environments. Human Performance, 12, 295–309.
Marks, M. A. (2000). A critical analysis of computer simulations for
conducting team research. Small Group Research, 31, 653– 675.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A conceptual
framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 356 –376.
Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The
impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 87, 3–13.
Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance
implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team
adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
971–986.
Mathieu, J. E., & Button, S. B. (1992). An examination of the relative
impact of normative information and self-efficacy on personal goals and
performance over time. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22,
1758 –1775.
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, 273–283.
Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, E. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R.
Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology:
Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 225–254). New
York: Wiley.
Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration
approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational
groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 327–378.
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and
S-PLUS. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000).
Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612– 624.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1997). Methods, tools, and strategies
for team training. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training
for the 21st century technology: Applications of psychological research
(pp. 249 –279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A
decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471– 499.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualization of practice:
Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for train-
ing. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422– 445.
Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive
expertise: Implications for training design. In M. A. Quiñones & A.
Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for the 21st century technology: Applica-
tions of psychological research (pp. 89 –118). Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychological Association.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M. T. (2001). To transfer or
not to transfer? Investigating the combined effects of trainee character-
istics, team leader support, and team climate. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 279 –292.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological method-
ology (pp. 290 –312). Washington, DC: American Sociological
Association.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240 –261.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Aca-
demic Press
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams:
Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 15, 120 –133.
Tesluk, P., Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (1997). Task and
aggregation issues in analysis and assessment of team performance. In
M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance
assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp.
197–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2000). The
changing signs in the relationships between self-efficacy, personal goals,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 605– 620.
Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan, M., Clegg,
C. W., & West, M. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of
company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57, 95–118.
Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity,
effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 77, 682– 693.
Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60 – 82.
Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1990). Goal setting and strategy effects on
complex tasks. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 73–110). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
 MULTILEVEL TRAINING TRANSFER 841

Appendix

Measures of Individual Goal Choice and Goal Striving 3. I monitored the physical condition of our helicopter
Activities
4. I focused my attention on how many weapons we had left
Goal Choice Items:
5. I monitored the approaching primary and secondary targets
1. I tried to better understand the main objectives of the upcoming
mission 6. I provided verbal feedback to my flight partner

2. I identified specific mission goals for our team to accomplish 7. I coached my flight partner to help him/her accomplish his/her
tasks
3. I prioritized the importance of different goals for our team
8. I timed my own actions to correspond with my flight partner’s
4. I formulated strategies for accomplishing our goals actions
5. I developed alternative courses of action for accomplishing our
9. I focused on coordinating well with my flight partner
goals
10. I communicated my actions to my flight partner when it was
Goal Striving Items:
necessary
1. I focused on how well our team progressed toward accomplish-
ing our goals
Received August 31, 2003
2. I paid close attention to what I needed to do at each stage of the Revision received August 22, 2004
mission Accepted September 15, 2004 䡲
View publication stats