Table 3 Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) rating, epidemiology emergency response survey, 2019–2020 (n = 166)
From: Team effectiveness: epidemiologists’ perception of collective performance during emergency response
Gender | Responder type | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No | Item | Total mean/SD** (n = -166) | Female Mean/SD** (n = 85) | Male Mean/SD** (n = 79) | t | p-value | Nat^ rating range* | Nat^ mean/ SD** (n = 96) | Int^ rating range* (n = 66) | Int^ mean/ SD** | t | p-value |
Leadership average (Q1-Q2) | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 2.9 ± 0.8 | -2.2 | 0.03 | 0–4 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 0–4 | 2.5 ± 1.1 | -2.9 | 0.003 | |
Q1 | The team leader let the team know what was expected of them through direction and command (n = 152) | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 2.7 ± 1.2 | 3.2 ± 0.8 | -2.9 | 0.005 | 1–4 | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 0–4 | 2.6 ± 1.1 | -3.3 | 0.001 |
Q2 | The team leader maintained a global perspective (n = 150) | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 2.5 ± 1.2 | 2.7 ± 1.0 | -1.3 | 0.18 | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 1.1 | 0–4 | 2.4 ± 1.1 | -1.9 | 0.05 |
Teamwork average (Q3-Q9) | 2.9 ± 0.7 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 2.9 ± 0.6 | -1.1 | 0.27 | 0–4 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 0–4 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | -2.9 | 0.004 | |
Q3 | The team communicated effectively (n = 150) | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 2.7 ± 1.0 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | -2.5 | 0.01 | 0–4 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | 0–4 | 2.6 ± 1.0 | -3.8 | 0.0002 |
Q4 | The team worked together to complete the tasks in a timely manner (n = 144) | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 3.2 ± 0.7 | -2.0 | 0.05 | 0–4 | 3.3 ± 0.7 | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 1.0 | -3.7 | 0.0002 |
Q5 | The team acted with composure and control (n = 149) | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 3.0 ± 0.7 | -0.2 | 0.84 | 1–4 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | -2.2 | 0.03 |
Q6 | The team morale was positive (n = 149) | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.59 | 1–4 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 0–4 | 2.6 ± 0.9 | -2.5 | 0.01 |
Q7 | The team adapted to changing situations (n = 149) | 2.9 ± 0.8 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.91 | 1–4 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | -2.0 | 0.05 |
Q8 | The team monitored and reassessed the situation (n = 148) | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | -0.4 | 0.65 | 0–4 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | 0–4 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | -0.8 | 0.41 |
Q9 | The team anticipated potential actions (n = 147) | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 2.7 ± 0.9 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | -0.8 | 0.41 | 0–4 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 0–4 | 2.6 ± 0.9 | -1.9 | 0.05 |
Task management average (Q10-Q11) | 3.1 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.2 ± 0.8 | -1.5 | 0.13 | 1–4 | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | -3.0 | 0.003 | |
Q10 | The team prioritised tasks (n = 149) | 3.1 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | -1.1 | 0.29 | 1–4 | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | -3.1 | 0.002 |
Q11 | The team followed approved standards and guidelines (n = 148) | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 3.2 ± 0.7 | -1.7 | 0.08 | 1–4 | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 1.0 | -2.4 | 0.02 |
Total TEAM score (Q1-11) | 32 ± 7.4 | 31 ± 8.3 | 33 ± 6.4 | -1.5 | 0.14 | 12–44 | 34 ± 6.1 | 0–44 | 29.5 ± 8.5 | -3.3 | 0.001 | |