Development and validation of the REMINT: a reflection measure for individuals and teams

ABSTRACT

A growing number of studies have investigated the role of team reflexivity, the extent to which teams reflect on and adapt their functioning. However, the way team reflexivity has been conceptualized and operationalized reveals several weaknesses, in particular the conception as a unidimensional construct. To provide greater conceptual clarity, we therefore propose a team reflexivity framework that integrates four interacting but distinct reflexive processes. In four studies, we focus on reflection as a fundamental reflexive process, and develop and validate an extended multidimensional reflection measure that captures the relevant dimensions of quality and quantity of reflection and the key transition processes of information seeking and information evaluation. Moreover, in order to delineate two common composition methods, we develop and validate a direct consensus and a referent-shift consensus version of the reflection measure. Data collected from a total of 803 students and employees in four studies revealed excellent construct validity, as well as good nomological validity (Studies 1 and 2). Furthermore, we found evidence of the criterion-related validity at the team level (Study 3) and the individual level (Study 4). Together, the results demonstrate the effectiveness of our measure, revealing consistent relations with outcome measures and diverse behavioural indicators across different contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• Team reflexivity
• reflection
• information seeking
• evaluation
• team processes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor, Roni Reiter-Palmon, and the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on the draft of the article. Moreover, we thank Catherine Walker for her excellent translation services.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.​

Notes

1. When we included gender, age, or semester as control variables in the regression analyses, our pattern of results remained unchanged. We therefore did not include these in the further analysis.