Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42791462›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

A teamwork response tree model for dyadic agreement-accuracy responses.

Peida Zhan, Gaohong Chu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Peida ZhanSchool of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University, Room 504, Building 33, No. 688, Yingbin Road, Jinhua City, 321004, Zhejiang Province, China. pdzhan@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-7691
Gaohong ChuSchool of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University, Room 504, Building 33, No. 688, Yingbin Road, Jinhua City, 321004, Zhejiang Province, China.

Funding

Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Leading Talents Training Project 25QNYC010ZD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Teamwork research increasingly relies on collaborative problem-solving (CPS) tasks to assess how individuals coordinate and integrate knowledge in joint work settings. However, most existing measurement approaches focus on final task accuracy and provide limited insight into the interaction processes that produce collaborative outcomes. Conventional scoring methods typically confound whether team members reach agreement with whether their responses are correct. This study introduces the Teamwork Response Tree (TRTree) model that decomposes dyadic collaborative responses into two linked latent processes: an agreement process and an accuracy process. The model is formulated within the item response tree framework and estimated using Bayesian methods. An empirical illustration using dyadic collaborative matrix reasoning tasks shows that the model yields interpretable estimates of individual ability, team-level ability, team-level agreement propensity, and item-level agreement difficulty. A Monte Carlo simulation study further evaluates parameter recovery under varying data conditions. Results indicate satisfactory parameter recovery and predictable effects of data informativeness on estimation accuracy. By separating convergence from correctness, the TRTree model provides a process-sensitive approach to measuring teamwork and extends item response tree modeling to collaborative problem-solving contexts.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorGroup ProcessesProblem SolvingBayes TheoremGroup DynamicsHumansMonte Carlo MethodAgreement-accuracy responseCollaborative problem solvingItem response theoryItem response tree modelTeamwork measurement

Identifiers

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.