The role of transactive memory systems, psychological safety and interpersonal conflict in hospital team performance

Figures & data

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and ranges for all variables alongside Spearman’s correlations between variables.

	Descriptive statistics						Inter-variable correlations
Variables	Items	Min	Max	Range	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Psychological safety	7	1	7	2.00–7.00	4.75	0.99	–
2. Interpersonal conflict	6	1	6	1.00–6.00	2.47	1.32	−.424**	–
3. Transactional memory system overall	15	1	5	2.33–4.80	3.65	0.41	.336**	−.213*	–
TMS: specialisation	5	1	5	2.40–5.00	3.79	0.55
TMS: credibility	5	1	5	1.80–4.80	3.53	0.51
TMS: coordination	5	1	5	1.80–5.00	3.63	0.56
4. Team performance overall	3	1	5	1.33–5.00	4.11	0.75	.341**	−.323**	.332**
Team performance: efficacy	1	1	5	1.00–5.00	4.03	0.79
Team performance: quality	1	1	5	2.00–5.00	4.13	0.75
Team performance: excellence	1	1	5	1.00–5.00	4.18	0.82

**p < .01, *p < .05.

Figure 1. Participants’ team composition (uni vs multi-professional) by professional group.

Stacked bar chart showing that team composition, as reported by staff as uni-professional or multi-professional, did not differ across the four professional groups (i.e. doctors, nurses, health care assistants and allied health professionals).

Table 2. Independent samples T-test comparing participants' measurement scores by team composition.

Variable	Uni- Professional (n = 52)	Multi- Professional (n = 39)	t	df	p
	M (sd)	M (sd)
Psychological safety	4.51 (0.92)	5.02 (1.09)	−2.401	89	.02*
Interpersonal conflict	2.68 (1.51)	2.22 (1.14)	1.613	89	.11
Transactional memory system	3.56 (0.46)	3.76 (0.41)	−2.204	89	.03*
Team Performance overall	4.09 (0.78)	4.05 (0.75)	.234	89	.82

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting team performance (dependent variable).

Predictor variables	Model 1: TMS			Model 2: psychological safety			Model 3: interpersonal conflict			Model 4: interaction effects
	Adjusted R^2 = −.06,			Adjusted R^2 = .20,			Adjusted R^2 = .23,			Adjusted R^2 = .25,
	F = .3.29, p = .02			F = 7.36, p < .001			F = 7.30, p < .001			F = 5.89, p < .001
	B [CI]	t	p	B [CI]	t	p	B [CI]	t	p	B [CI}	t	p
TMS specialisation	.145 [−.08, .47]	1.41	.16	.167 [−.03, .48]	1.76	.08	.167 [−.09, .46]	1.80	.08	.228 [.04, .42]	2.35	.02
TMS credibility	−.137 [−.53, .13]	−1.22	.23	−.202 [−.60, −.01]	−1.93	.06	−.232 [−.67, −.06]	−2.25	.03	−.194 [−.41, .02]	−1.83	.07
TMS coordination	.272 [.07, .66]	2.45	.01	.142 [−.10, .47]	1.32	.19	.170 [−.07, .49]	1.60	.11	.181 [−.03, .39]	1.73	.09
Psychological safety				.406 [.16, .45]	4.23	<.001	.295 [.07, .38]	2.82	<.01	.254 [.05, .46]	2.41	.02
Interpersonal conflict							−.233 [−.24, −.02]	−2.38	.02	−.237 [−.43, −.04]	−2.44	.02
TMS*Psychological safety										.228 [−.01, .32]	1.87	.06
TMS*Interpersonal conflict										.069 [−.11, .21]	0.60	.55

Model 1: R² Change = .09, F Change = 3.29, p = .02.

Model 2: R² Change = .14, F Change = 17.96, p < .0001.

Model 3: R² Change = .04, F Change = 5.69, p = .02.

Model 4: R² Change = .03, F Change = 1.99, p = .14.