The Pilar Model as a Measure of Peer Ratings of Collaboration Viability in Small Groups
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13026075 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Benjamin Heslop (0000-0002-9465-558X, University of Newcastle Australia, corresponding author), Kathryne Bailey (0000-0002-8109-7662, University of Newcastle Australia), Jonathan Paul (0000-0003-3064-6358, University of Newcastle Australia), Elizabeth Stojanovski (0000-0002-2507-3877, University of Newcastle Australia) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 49-49 |
| Publication date | 2018-03-20 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Sciences (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2076-0760 • E-ISSN: 2076-0760 |
| Publisher | MDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT) |
| DOI | 10.3390/socsci7030049 |
| OpenAlex | W2791001626 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 45 |
The PILAR (prospects, involved, liked, agency, respect) model provides a dynamical systems perspective on collaboration. Two studies are performed using peer assessment data, both testing empirical support for the five Pillars that constitute members’ perceptions of collaboration viability (CoVi). The first study analyses peer assessment data collected online from 458 first-year engineering students (404 males; 54 females). A nine-item instrument was inherited from past year’s usage in the course, expanded with four additional items to elaborate upon the agency and liked Pillars. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on student responses to test whether they thematically aligned to constructs consistent with the five Pillars. As anticipated, twelve of the thirteen items grouped into five components, each aligned with a Pillar, providing empirical evidence that the five Pillars represent perceptions of collaboration. The second study replicated the first study using a retrospective analysis of 87 items included in the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) peer assessment tool. The associated factor analyses resulted in five components and conceptual alignment of these components with Pillars was evident for three of five CATME components. We recommend a peer assessment instrument based upon PILAR as potentially more parsimonious and reliable than an extensive list of behaviours, such as employed by CATME. We also recommend including items that target inter-rater bias, which is aligned with the liked Pillar, that instruments such as CATME exclude
Agency (philosophy · Empirical research · Exploratory factor analysis · Mathematics education · Medical education · Peer Assessment · Peer review · Perspective (graphical · Pillar · Political science · Psychometrics · Sociology · Statistics · Test (biology · Applied Psychology · Clinical Psychology · Computer Science · Engineering · Innovative Education and Learning Practices · Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology · Team Dynamics and Performance · Artificial Intelligence
Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices
Associative processes in intuitive judgment
Life after P-Hacking
Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups
How Do They Get There? An Examination of the Antecedents of Centrality in Team Networks.
Effective peer assessment processes
Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork?
Development of a Theory-Based Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness
Group Affect
Appreciative Inquiry and Evaluation – Getting to What Works
Convergence and emergence in organizations
How unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the “signal extraction” counterexplanation for the Dunning–Kruger effect in self-evaluation of performance
Who is late and who is early? Big Five personality factors and punctuality in attending psychological experiments
Suffering, Selfish, Slackers? Myths and Reality About Emerging Adults
Status Congruency and Interpersonal Conflict in Decision-Making Groups
The Role of Intuition in Strategic Decision Making
Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population
Measuring climate for work group innovation
Influence through social communication
Reciprocity as a Source of Bias in Multiple Peer Assessment of Group Work
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |