Collective Self-Efficacy Expectations Inventory (I-KSWE)

Abstract

The Collective Self-Efficacy Expectations Inventory (known in German as the Inventar zur Erfassung der kollektiven Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung, abbreviated as I-KSWE) is an ultra-short psychometric instrument designed to assess generalized collective efficacy beliefs and group potency within organizational and task-oriented work teams. Drawing theoretically from Albert Bandura‘s social cognitive theory and psychometrically adapted from the work of Kirkman and colleagues, the I-KSWE captures the shared, generalized belief among team members that their collective unit can surmount formidable obstacles, effectively coordinate competencies, and achieve superior work performance. Structured around a reference-shift consensus model, the scale directs individual respondents to rate collective-level agency rather than self-referent skills. Comprising exactly three positively phrased items administered via a five-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), the inventory offers exceptional testing economy, requiring approximately one minute to complete in computer-assisted or paper-pencil modalities.

Psychometric evaluation based on an organizational sample of 210 employees across 41 engineering and development teams in the automotive manufacturing sector confirms robust reliability and valid structural characteristics. Both internal consistency estimates, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega, yielded coefficients of .80. Exploratory principal axis factoring extracted a single overarching dimension explaining 73% of total variance, with standardized factor loadings ranging from .80 to .88. Confirmatory factor analysis within a structural equation modeling framework verified strong local model fit, exhibiting standardized item loadings between .64 and .86. Convergent construct validity is empirically underscored by substantial bivariate correlations with team cohesion (r = .67), transactive memory systems (r = .59), transition processes (r = .44), action processes (r = .42), and interpersonal processes (r = .45). Demonstrating high criterion-related validity, the inventory correlated strongly with team creativity (r = .61) and established significant incremental validity, accounting for an additional 8% of unique variance in team creativity above and beyond traditional team processes, cohesion, and knowledge systems. Consequently, the I-KSWE represents an efficient, psychometrically sound diagnostic tool for organizational research, longitudinal team monitoring, agile project tracking, and high-reliability operational settings.

Keywords

Collective self-efficacy, group potency, team cognitions, team performance, social cognitive theory, reference-shift consensus model, team creativity, team cohesion, transactive memory systems, organizational diagnostics, psychometrics, scale validation, ultra-short inventory, workplace psychology, team effectiveness

Authors

The Collective Self-Efficacy Expectations Inventory (I-KSWE) was developed and validated by Dr. Josef A. Fischer, an organizational psychologist and specialist in team process assessment, team cognition, and workplace diagnostics.

• Author: Dr. Josef A. Fischer
• Institutional Affiliation: Industrial and Organizational Psychology / Organizational Team Research, Germany
• Contact Email: [email protected]
• Conceptual Adaptation: Based on the foundational team potency and collective efficacy conceptualizations of Kirkman et al. (2004), adapted into German using rigorous cross-cultural translation guidelines (Brislin, 1970).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Collective Self-Efficacy Expectations Inventory (I-KSWE) is to provide an ultra-brief, reliable, and construct-valid metric for capturing shared efficacy expectations and generalized group potency in professional work groups. In contemporary organizational psychology, collaborative performance increasingly hinges not merely on aggregate individual talents, but on the social-cognitive appraisal that a collective unit possesses the requisite motivation, resourcefulness, and synergy to tackle arduous tasks. Despite the profound theoretical and empirical importance of collective efficacy for predicting workplace effectiveness, field practitioners and empirical researchers frequently encounter respondent fatigue, survey attrition, and logistical barriers when deploying extensive diagnostic batteries. The I-KSWE resolves this practical tension by distilling generalized group-level efficacy into an economic, three-item survey requiring less than sixty seconds to complete.

Organizational and Research Applications

In academic research, the I-KSWE serves as an empirical instrument for multi-level investigations, longitudinal field experiments, and team-tracking paradigms. Its brevity makes it uniquely suited for experience sampling methods (ESM), daily diary studies, and multi-wave field surveys where repeated administration of lengthy inventories would induce measurement reactivity or non-response bias. Researchers investigating organizational change, agile software development sprints, interdisciplinary scientific consortia, and innovation dynamics can deploy the I-KSWE to track shifts in shared motivational states over time.

In applied organizational and consulting environments, the scale operates as a versatile diagnostic instrument. Work units undergoing structural transformations, strategic realignments, or acute crises derive immediate diagnostic insight from collective efficacy profiles. It is particularly valuable in high-stakes environments—such as emergency medical teams, aviation crews, law enforcement tactical units, and crisis response task forces—where collective confidence under acute operational stress directly dictates mission success. Furthermore, in modern agile management frameworks (such as Scrum or Kanban), the I-KSWE can be embedded seamlessly into sprint planning sessions, sprint retrospectives, or team kickoffs to gauge collective readiness and calibrate ambitious milestones against shared perceived capabilities.

Clinical, Educational, and Team Coaching Settings

Beyond traditional industrial corporations, the I-KSWE exhibits utility in educational settings (e.g., student engineering design groups, academic project teams) and team coaching interventions. Executive coaches and team facilitators utilize the scale to initiate reflective dialogues concerning collective self-limiting beliefs. Guided by the critical incident methodology, facilitators can help underperforming teams contrast their current self-efficacy ratings against historical milestones when the group successfully mastered critical stressors. In this manner, the inventory acts not merely as a passive assessment instrument, but as an active catalyst for team reflexivity, collective empowerment, and shared resilience.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the I-KSWE is collective self-efficacy expectations (kollektive Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung), often operationalized interchangeably in the organizational literature as group potency. In social-cognitive psychology, collective efficacy is defined as a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments. While task-specific collective efficacy focuses on circumscribed technical operations (such as resolving a specific software bug or executing a designated medical protocol), the construct captured by the I-KSWE represents generalized collective efficacy or group potency—the overarching, task-generalized confidence shared among group members that their unit can successfully overcome unforeseen impediments, mobilize concerted effort, and consistently achieve favorable outcomes across diverse situational contexts.

Theoretical Dimensions of Group Agency

The single-factor architecture of the I-KSWE encompasses three central facets of collective agency:

• Shared Intragroup Confidence: Manifested in the team’s generalized, enduring faith in its internal resources, systemic synergy, and shared competencies (captured by Item 1: “My team has confidence in itself”). This dimension reflects the foundational emotional and cognitive baseline of mutual trust and collective self-assurance.
• Effort-Performance Contingency: Manifested in the collective conviction that mobilized effort directly translates into significant achievements (captured by Item 2: “My team can achieve a lot if it works hard”). This reflects the core motivational expectation that environmental barriers and task complexities can be surmounted through diligent, coordinated labor, directly aligning with expectancy theory and Bandurian effort attribution.
• Outcome Expectancy and Mastery Orientation: Manifested in the collective belief in the team’s capacity to attain high-level, exceptional success (captured by Item 3: “My team believes that it can be very successful”). This forward-looking aspiration drives goal setting, persistence in the face of setbacks, and resilience against negative performance feedback.

Multi-Level Conceptualization: Reference-Shift Consensus Model

Methodologically, measuring collective psychological phenomena requires careful navigation of the ecological fallacy and aggregation fallacies. Following the multi-level typology articulated by Chan (1998), the I-KSWE is explicitly formulated as a reference-shift consensus model. In traditional individual efficacy assessments, the referent is the personal self (e.g., “I am confident that I can…”). In contrast, a reference-shift consensus model systematically alters the cognitive referent from the individual self to the collective entity (e.g., “My team has confidence in itself”). Each individual team member acts as an informant evaluating the characteristics of the group as a whole. While data are gathered at the individual level (Level 1), the conceptual construct and its intended inference reside at the team or group level (Level 2). Consequently, researchers typically aggregate individual scores within a team to calculate a shared group-level mean, contingent upon empirically establishing within-group agreement and between-group variance.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the I-KSWE is rooted in Albert Bandura‘s Social Cognitive Theory (1982, 1997, 2000). Bandura extended his foundational framework of individual self-efficacy—defined as personal judgments of one’s capability to organize and execute courses of action to attain designated goals—into the collective realm. Central to social cognitive theory is the mechanism of triadic reciprocal determinism, which posits that human functioning is the product of continuous, dynamic interactions between cognitive/personal factors, behavioral patterns, and environmental influences. Bandura asserted that people do not live their lives in social isolation; rather, many human goals are attainable only through interdependent, concerted collective action.

Foundations of Group Potency and Collective Agency

Collective agency emerges when members of a group coordinate their individual knowledge, physical capabilities, and interactive skills to pursue shared objectives. However, coordinated action is inherently fragile: unless group members collectively judge that their team possesses the requisite capacity to succeed, they lack the motivational impetus to sustain effort when confronted with complex, ambiguous, or hostile operational conditions. Bandura emphasized that collective efficacy is not merely the mathematical sum of individual team members’ self-efficacy scores. Rather, it represents an emergent group-level attribute arising from dynamic reciprocal interactions, social persuasion, shared behavioral modeling, and collective sensemaking.

Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, and Shea (1993) further refined this theoretical domain by formally introducing the construct of group potency, delineating it as the collective belief held by a group that it can be effective across an extensive variety of tasks and settings. Whereas Bandura sometimes conceptualized collective efficacy as task-specific (e.g., efficacy to resolve conflict, efficacy to meet a specific financial quota), Guzzo and colleagues demonstrated that work teams develop generalized motivational schemas regarding their overall capacity to master novel difficulties. The I-KSWE directly aligns with this group potency tradition, capturing the enduring, generalized confidence that sustains teams across varying challenges.

Multi-Level Composition and Consensus Models

To ground this social-cognitive construct within quantitative psychometrics, the I-KSWE adopts Chan’s (1998) composition framework. Composition models describe the explicit operational logic linking constructs conceptualized at different hierarchical levels. Chan identified five distinct composition models: additive, direct consensus, reference-shift consensus, dispersion, and process models. As highlighted previously, the reference-shift consensus model is essential when assessing collective psychological phenomena:

1. Cognitive Shift: The framing of the survey item must fundamentally prompt the respondent to focus on collective dynamics rather than introspective self-evaluation. By employing the anchor phrase “Mein Team…” (“My team…”), the cognitive filter is oriented outward toward team-level functioning.
2. Within-Unit Convergence: Because the construct represents a shared property of the social unit, researchers applying the scale at the group level must compute indices of within-team agreement (such as James, Demaree, and Wolf’s r_wg or r_wg(j)) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[1] and ICC[2]) to justify mathematically aggregating individual responses to the team mean.
3. Predictive Primacy: Meta-analytic syntheses by Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, and Beaubien (2002), Stajkovic, Lee, and Nyberg (2009), and Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011) have consistently shown that generalized collective efficacy and group potency are among the strongest psychological predictors of team functioning, explaining substantial unique variance in team productivity, collaborative innovation, customer satisfaction, and team viability.

Validity

The construct, criterion, and incremental validity of the I-KSWE were rigorously examined by Fischer (2020) in an empirical study conducted across 41 engineering, research, and development teams (comprising N = 210 participating professionals) within a large German automotive corporation. The psychometric evaluation adhered to contemporary standard validation guidelines, providing convergent, criterion-related, and hierarchical regression evidence.

Convergent Construct Validity

To establish convergent validity, bivariate Pearson correlations were computed between the I-KSWE and validated measures of theoretically proximal team constructs, including team cohesion, transactive memory systems, and core team operational processes:

• Team Cohesion: Operationalized via a three-item scale adapted from Carless and De Paola (2000), capturing mutual commitment and interpersonal solidarity. The I-KSWE demonstrated a strong, statistically significant positive correlation with team cohesion (r = .67, p < .01). Highly cohesive teams foster psychological safety and mutual commitment, which reciprocally reinforce collective efficacy beliefs.
• Transactive Memory Systems (TMS): Measured using the operationalization by Ellwart and Konradt (2007), assessing the cooperative distribution, reliance upon, and retrieval of specialized expertise among team members. The I-KSWE exhibited a robust correlation with TMS (r = .59, p < .01), supporting the theoretical premise that structured, reliable access to group knowledge reinforces collective competence beliefs.
• Team Processes (Marks et al., 2001 Framework): Operationalized via the comprehensive team process inventory developed by Fischer (2020), which differentiates among strategic transition processes, operational action processes, and relational interpersonal processes:
  • Transition Processes: Associated with mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy formulation (r = .44, p < .01).
  • Action Processes: Associated with active monitoring of progress, systems monitoring, and team backup behavior (r = .42, p < .01).
  • Interpersonal Processes: Associated with conflict management, motivation building, and affect management (r = .45, p < .01).

These consistent moderate-to-strong correlations confirm that collective efficacy operates as an integral component of the nomological network of team performance, while remaining empirically distinguishable from routine task execution behaviors.

Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion validity was established through the prediction of Team Creativity, an essential behavioral outcome in modern knowledge-driven engineering and innovation settings. Team creativity was assessed via a four-item instrument adapted from Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, and Boerner (2008), measuring the group’s active generation, introduction, and implementation of novel, useful solutions to complex technical challenges (e.g., “My team suggests new ways to perform work tasks”). The I-KSWE correlated strongly with team creativity (r = .61, p < .01), demonstrating that teams harboring elevated collective self-efficacy are far more willing to embrace creative risk, experiment with non-standard approaches, and persist in complex problem solving.

Incremental Validity

A critical test for any ultra-short inventory is whether it provides unique explanatory power over and above established, extensive multi-item diagnostic measures. Fischer conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting team creativity across two sequential steps:

• Step 1: Team cohesion, transactive memory systems, transition processes, action processes, and interpersonal processes were entered simultaneously into the regression model. These five foundational variables accounted for 37% of the variance in team creativity (R² = .37, adjusted R² = .36, p < .001). Within this baseline model, team cohesion (β = .42, p < .001) and transition processes (β = .20, p < .05) emerged as significant individual predictors.
• Step 2: Collective self-efficacy expectations (I-KSWE) were added to the model. The total explained variance rose significantly to 45% (R² = .45, adjusted R² = .43), representing a statistically significant variance increase of 8% (ΔR² = .08, p < .001). In this final saturated model, the I-KSWE was the strongest unique predictor of team creativity (β = .40, p < .001), while the direct coefficient for cohesion dropped substantially (β = .24, p < .01).

This striking incremental contribution—accounting for 8% of additional variance beyond five established team-level dimensions—confirms the acute diagnostic potency and distinct explanatory value of the I-KSWE, especially remarkable given its concise three-item construction.

Reliability

The reliability of the Collective Self-Efficacy Expectations Inventory was evaluated using both traditional and modern psychometric consistency coefficients. In organizational research, short measurement scales frequently suffer from degraded internal consistency due to the direct penalization of item brevity inherent in classical formulas. The I-KSWE, however, exhibits strong psychometric precision.

Internal Consistency: Alpha and Omega

Based on the validation sample of 210 corporate professionals, the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): Computed at α = .80. This exceeds the widely cited benchmark of .70 recommended for exploratory research and satisfies the rigorous threshold of .80 established for applied diagnostics (Bortz & Döring, 2006; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
• McDonald’s Omega (ω): Recognizing that Cronbach’s alpha relies on the restrictive assumption of tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items) and can misestimate reliability when this assumption is violated, McDonald’s omega was also calculated. The analysis yielded ω = .80, establishing that the single latent factor accounts for 80% of the true-score variance in the composite scale score.

Item Discrimination and Classical Parameters

Classical item analyses demonstrated that all three items possess robust psychometric properties and high discriminative capacity. Corrected item-total correlations (part-whole-corrected item discrimination, r_it-i) substantially exceeded the conservative critical cutoff of .50 recommended by Bortz and Döring (2006):

• Item 1 (Confidence in self): Mean = 3.89, SD = 0.80, Skewness = -0.42, Excess Kurtosis = 0.12, Corrected Item-Total Correlation (r_it) = .66.
• Item 2 (Achieve through hard work): Mean = 4.37, SD = 0.70, Skewness = -0.75, Excess Kurtosis = 0.16, Corrected Item-Total Correlation (r_it) = .58.
• Item 3 (Belief in great success): Mean = 4.11, SD = 0.75, Skewness = -0.46, Excess Kurtosis = 0.05, Corrected Item-Total Correlation (r_it) = .71.

At the composite level, the overall scale mean was 4.12 with an aggregate standard deviation of 0.63. Composite skewness (-0.21) and composite kurtosis (-0.30) indicate a well-behaved distribution without severe floor or ceiling distortions. These classical statistics confirm that each item contributes strongly and homogeneously to the targeted latent construct.

Factor Analysis

To verify the internal structural validity of the I-KSWE, both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted on the empirical validation dataset.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

An exploratory principal axis factoring (PAF) was conducted on the three manifest items. To account for potential multidimensionality without forcing artificial orthogonality, an oblique Promax rotation (with κ = 4) was specified. The scree test and Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalue criterion (eigenvalue > 1) unambiguously indicated a strictly unidimensional structure:

• Only one overarching factor emerged with an eigenvalue exceeding 1.0.
• This primary factor accounted for 73.0% of the total variance across the indicators.
• Standardized exploratory factor loadings were exceptionally high: .85 for Item 1, .80 for Item 2, and .88 for Item 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

A confirmatory structural equation model was specified using IBM SPSS Amos 25, utilizing maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. In standard structural equation modeling, a single-factor latent variable measured by exactly three manifest indicators possesses zero degrees of freedom (df = 0), representing a just-identified (or saturated) structural model (Wu & Estabrook, 2016). In a just-identified model, mathematical equations possess exactly as many known values in the sample covariance matrix as unknown parameters to be estimated. Consequently, omnibus global goodness-of-fit indices (such as χ², RMSEA, CFI, or TLI) cannot be meaningfully interpreted, as the model mathematically fits the sample covariances perfectly by definition.

Under these mathematical circumstances, model adequacy is assessed through local goodness-of-fit parameters, specifically the magnitude, direction, and statistical significance of the standardized factor loadings and item reliabilities (squared multiple correlations, R²):

• Item 1 (Vertrauen in sich selbst): Standardized CFA loading λ = .76 (p < .001).
• Item 2 (Viel erreichen bei harter Arbeit): Standardized CFA loading λ = .64 (p < .001).
• Item 3 (Erfolgreich sein können): Standardized CFA loading λ = .86 (p < .001).

All standardized loadings exceeded the widely accepted threshold of .60, and all parameters reached statistical significance at p < .001. These robust local fit metrics confirm that the manifest items represent strong, convergent operationalizations of the latent collective efficacy dimension.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Collective Self-Efficacy Expectations Inventory (I-KSWE) is designed as an ultra-economic rating scale tailored for team-level diagnostics in organizational research and professional consulting settings.

Administrative and Structural Specifications

• Test Type: Standardized self-report inventory using a reference-shift consensus model for group-level assessment.
• Item Count: Exactly 3 manifest items, all positively keyed.
• Administration Modality: Primary deployment via Computer Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ / online survey). Can also be administered via paper-pencil questionnaires or as an oral reflection exercise in team workshops and team coaching.
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 minute (high test economy).
• Target Population: Members of interdependent work units, including industrial manufacturing groups, corporate project teams, agile software squads, public administration departments, university project groups, and specialized tactical teams.
• Introductory Framing: To minimize ambiguity, administrators must explicitly designate the specific target team by name in the survey header and instructions (e.g., “The purpose of this survey is to capture your perception of collaboration within team: [Insert Team Name]”).

Response Format

Respondents evaluate each statement using a balanced, five-point Likert response scale anchored as follows:

• 1: Stimme überhaupt nicht zu (Strongly disagree)
• 2: Stimme eher nicht zu (Disagree somewhat)
• 3: Teils/teils (Neither agree nor disagree / Neutral)
• 4: Stimme eher zu (Agree somewhat)
• 5: Stimme voll und ganz zu (Strongly agree)

Scoring and Aggregation Rules

• Item Coding: All items are positively keyed; no reverse scoring is required. Numerical values correspond directly to the response category (1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4, 5 = 5).
• Scale Composite Index: An unweighted arithmetic mean score is computed across the three items for each individual participant:
  
  Individual Efficacy Score = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3) / 3
• Handling Missing Data: In line with standard psychometric imputation guidelines, individual scores should be computed only for respondents who provided valid answers to at least two of the three items (≥ 66.7% valid data). For missing items within partially completed records meeting this threshold, individual mean substitution across remaining items can be applied. In the foundational validation study, missing values were successfully handled using the Expectation-Maximization Algorithm (EMA) via NORM 2.03.
• Team-Level Aggregation: When utilized for team-level diagnosis or multi-level modeling, individual mean scores are averaged across all participating members of that specific team:
  
  Team Collective Efficacy = Σ (Individual Team Member Scores) / k
  
  (where k represents the number of reporting team members). Aggregation should be psychometrically supported by verifying within-team agreement (e.g., r_wg ≥ .70) and between-team variance (ICC[1] > 0, ICC[2] ≥ .60).
• Interpretation via Critical Incident Referencing: In coaching contexts, administrators can employ Flanagan’s (1954) Critical Incident Technique. Teams identify a past, highly demanding operational event that was successfully mastered. This historic milestone serves as a reference point for “maximal collective efficacy,” allowing the team to qualitatively benchmark their current I-KSWE score against historical performance challenges.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Collective Self-Efficacy Expectations Inventory (I-KSWE) was developed and empirically validated in 2011 (subsequently documented in Fischer, 2020). The instrument is designed as an open-access psychometric instrument for academic research and educational purposes.

• Test Year: 2011 (Empirical data collection); 2020 (Open documentation release).
• Licensing and Fees: The scale is available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, university teaching, and non-profit organizational studies. Academic researchers may reproduce and administer the items without licensing fees, provided appropriate scholarly citation is attributed to the author.
• Commercial and Consulting Usage: Commercial application within corporate diagnostics, proprietary consulting platforms, or paid assessment software requires prior notification or authorization from the author.
• Author Contact: Inquiries regarding the inventory, normative reference tables, or aggregation guidelines should be directed to:
  
  Dr. Josef A. Fischer
  
  Email: [email protected]

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064

Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33306-7

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100104

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating a team climate approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012716

Ellwart, T., & Konradt, U. (2007). Transaktive Wissenssysteme in Organisationen: Erfassung und Überprüfung eines Modells zur Wissenskoordination in Arbeitsgruppen. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51(3), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089.51.3.103

Fischer, J. A. (2020). Inventar zur Erfassung der kollektiven Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung (I-KSWE). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). https://doi.org/10.6102/zis287

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Management, 4(2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1993.tb00050.x

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159571

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022676

Sosik, J. J. (2010). Leading minds and hearts: Inspiring and motivating people with charismatic and transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015659

Wu, H., & Estabrook, R. (2016). Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for categorical data. Psychometrika, 81(4), 1014–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9506-0

Items of the Scale