Abstract
The importance to examine the types of analysis is always emphasized by researcher(s) because not all work is absolutely done at individual level. Playing football, building an academic module, and developing new design need the group to work to complete them. Therefore, individual-level analysis only is not sufficient. It needs researchers to look at the different angle of analysis, group level of analysis. By using group level of analysis, this study aims to examine the measurement of group process in the industrial practices. The formula of James et al. [13] is used to make a verification of interrater agreement. A total of 460 undergraduates from six universities have engaged in brainstorming sessions. The result clearly shows that the three measures of process – production blocking, social loafing, and evaluation apprehension – can be acceptable in using interrater of agreement on group work in design practices especially industrial design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality: Is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach. Small Group Research, 32, 158–205.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating ability and personality to team-work processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.
Bolin, A. U. (2002). The relationships among personality, process, and performance in interactive brainstorming groups. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Illinois University.
Bolin, A. U., & Neuman, G. A. (2006). The relationships among personality, process, and performance in interactive brainstorming groups. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 565–585.
Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More head are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531–537.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.
Furnham, A., & Yazdanpanahi, T. (1995). Personality differences and groups versus individual brainstorming. Personality Individual Differences, 19, 73–80.
Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992). Group size & electronic brainstorming. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 350–369.
Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36, 83–105.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214–1229.
Heslin, R. (1964). Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 248–256.
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.
Kerr, C. I. V., Phaal, R., & Probet, D. R. (2009). Addressing the cognitive and social influence inhibitors during the ideation stages of technology roadmapping workshops. PICMET 2009 Proceedings, Portland, 2–6 August 2009.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
Latane, B., William, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
Lonergan, J. M., Long, H. J., Bolin, A. U., & Neuman, G. A. (2000). The big five task type and group performance: A meta-analysis. Poster presented at the 15th annual meeting of the society for industrial and organizational psychology, New Orleans.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individual in team setting: the importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and team-work knowledge. Personal Psychology, 58, 583–612.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24, 28–45.
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237–262.
Peeters, M. A. G., Rutte, C. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). The big five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the team. Small Group Research, 37, 187–211.
Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1996). Invoking social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: Beyond anonymity. Journal of Management Information System, 12, 155–170.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zainol, A.S., Tajuddin, R., Sanusi, Z.M., Ramli, M.F., Yusof, M.M.M. (2015). Interrater Agreement for Process Loss Measures: Are They Applicable for Brainstorming Technique in Industrial Design Practices?. In: Hassan, O., Abidin, S., Legino, R., Anwar, R., Kamaruzaman, M. (eds) International Colloquium of Art and Design Education Research (i-CADER 2014). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-332-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-332-3_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-331-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-332-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)