Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40982737›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine2025

Introducing the TDM-20: A Validated 20-Item Instrument to Measure Team Development.

Hiroto Inoue, Kathryn Bonuck, Patricia A Carney, Daisuke Yamashita

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hiroto InoueDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Kathryn BonuckDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Patricia A CarneyDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Daisuke YamashitaDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesResearch has shown that effective team functioning increases patient satisfaction and reduces medical errors and burnout. The Team Development Measure (TDM), a 31-item instrument, was validated to assess four areas of team development: cohesion, communication, roles and goals, and team priorities. Despite its high reliability and psychometric validity, the large number of items in the TDM may be a barrier to its use in busy health care settings.

methodsUsing the original dataset of 1,194 participants from 120 primary care teams, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis. We used principal component analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization to validate a 20-item shortened version (TDM-20). We also performed a scree test as a parallel analysis.

resultsOur exploratory factor analysis identified two domains in the TDM-20. The first was communication and engagement, which we defined as team members' ability to respectfully interact toward accomplishing goals. The second domain was shared values and cohesion, which we defined as core beliefs that guide the behaviors of a group from an empathetic and psychologically safe position. Each domain comprised 10 items. The eigenvalues for the two domains were 10.9 and 1.10, accounting for 54.5% and 5.5% of the variance, respectively. Both domains demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α were 0.92 and 0.93, respectively).

conclusionsThe TDM-20 demonstrated high validity and is suitable for measuring team development in primary care medical settings. Further research is needed to examine whether the pandemic affected the results of the instrument in various cultural backgrounds and current medical environments.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamPrimary Health CareAdultCommunicationFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansInterprofessional RelationsMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40982737
PMCPMC12638077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.