Team Processes Survey Measure (TP-M)

Abstract

The Team Processes Survey Measure (TP-M) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to assess multidimensional team interaction processes in organizational and research settings. Grounded in the seminal temporal team process taxonomy established by Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001), the instrument operationalizes teamwork behaviors across recurring task episodes. Developed in parallel with the English-language inventory by Mathieu, Luciano, D’Innocenzo, Klock, and LePine (2019), the TP-M is structured into a comprehensive 30-item long form and an abbreviated 10-item short form suitable for pulse surveys and longitudinal research designs. The instrument captures three overarching second-order latent dimensions—Transition Processes, Action Processes, and Interpersonal Processes—which subsume ten specific first-order facets: Mission Analysis, Goal Specification, Strategy Formulation and Planning, Monitoring Progress Toward Goals, Systems Monitoring, Team Monitoring and Backup Behavior, Coordination, Conflict Management, Motivating and Confidence Building, and Affect Management. Administered using a collective reference-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998), items are scored on a five-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“überhaupt nicht” / not at all) to 5 (“in sehr hohem Maße” / to a very great extent). Psychometric evaluation confirms excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .66 to .94; McDonald’s omega ranging from .69 to .93) across dimensions. Confirmatory factor analyses corroborate the hypothesized hierarchical three-factor structure, demonstrating acceptable to good model fit (for the 30-item model: χ² = 768.67, df = 392, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .071; for the 10-item model: χ² = 73.53, df = 32, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .055). Strong convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity are evidenced by substantial correlations with team cohesion, group potency, and organizational effectiveness benchmarks, establishing the TP-M as a robust diagnostic tool for industrial and organizational psychology.

Keywords

Team Processes Survey Measure, TP-M, team processes, teamwork, transition processes, action processes, interpersonal processes, Marks et al. taxonomy, organizational psychology, group dynamics, psychometrics, team effectiveness, reference-shift consensus model

Authors

The English-language foundational instrument and psychometric framework were developed by John E. Mathieu (University of Connecticut), Margaret M. Luciano (The Pennsylvania State University), Lauren D’Innocenzo (Drexel University), Cassandra G. Klock (University of Connecticut), and Jeffery A. LePine (Arizona State University). The rigorous German-language adaptation, translation, and empirical validation within industrial engineering and innovation contexts were conducted by researchers adhering to established cross-cultural psychometric guidelines (Brislin, 1970). Inquiries regarding the original theoretical framework and scale construction are directed to the primary developer, Dr. John E. Mathieu, Department of Management, School of Business, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.

Purpose

Workplace structures across modern industries increasingly rely on team-based organizational designs to address complex, dynamic, and non-routine challenges. In fast-paced innovation environments, engineering projects, software development teams, and high-reliability operational units, collective success depends not merely on individual technical competencies (taskwork), but fundamentally on the behavioral, cognitive, and affective interactions among team members directed toward shared objectives (teamwork). Despite the widespread recognition of teamwork as a pivotal driver of organizational performance, organizational diagnosticians and organizational psychology researchers have historically faced methodological fragmentation, relying on disparate, ad-hoc, or psychometrically unvalidated scales that conflate emergent team states (e.g., psychological safety, cohesion, shared mental models) with active behavioral team processes.

The primary purpose of the Team Processes Survey Measure (TP-M) is to provide a standardized, theoretically rigorous, and psychometrically sound instrument capable of systematically diagnosing and mapping team processes at the collective group level. Grounded in the episodic framework of Marks et al. (2001), the TP-M addresses a profound diagnostic need by separating team processes into distinct, functionally organized phases. It enables organizational psychologists, human resource leaders, executive coaches, and academic investigators to conduct nuanced audits of how teams prepare for action (transition phases), how they execute workflows and monitor operational environments (action phases), and how they cultivate social relationships and interpersonal cohesion throughout all episodes (interpersonal processes).

In applied organizational development, the TP-M serves as an actionable diagnostic instrument for team interventions, post-mission debriefs, project post-mortems, and leadership coaching. By evaluating both first-order operational facets (such as mission analysis, resource monitoring, and backup behavior) and second-order aggregate domains, practitioners can pinpoint specific bottlenecks within a struggling team’s lifecycle. For example, a team failing to meet product release deadlines may exhibit proficient interpersonal dynamics and high motivation, yet display deficient goal monitoring or inadequate contingency planning. Conversely, a technically rigorous engineering squad may execute action routines effectively while experiencing destructive interpersonal friction that erodes resilience over time.

In academic research, the instrument provides an empirical bridge connecting theoretical inputs (e.g., team composition, structural empowerment, leadership style) to downstream collective outcomes (e.g., innovation output, customer satisfaction, financial performance, team member retention). The availability of both the full 30-item instrument and an economical 10-item short form facilitates high-frequency longitudinal designs, experience sampling methodology (ESM), and organizational pulse surveys without imposing burdensome cognitive fatigue on respondents. Furthermore, by formalizing the reference-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998), the TP-M ensures that individual psychometric ratings accurately reflect collective, group-referent phenomena rather than idiosyncratic personal behaviors.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the TP-M is Team Processes, formally defined by Marks et al. (2001, p. 357) as “members’ interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals.” In industrial and organizational psychology, team processes represent the dynamic mechanisms of teamwork that mediate the input-process-outcome (I-P-O) and input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) causal pathways (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). The TP-M conceptualizes team processes as a hierarchical construct comprising three overarching second-order dimensions that govern ten primary first-order facets:

1. Transition Processes (Second-Order Dimension)

Transition processes encompass periods of team activity focused primarily on evaluation, reflection, and forward-looking planning. Teams engage in these behaviors before task execution or during designated intervals between performance episodes. The TP-M delineates three first-order transition subscales:

• Mission Analysis (Analyse der Aufgabe): The deliberate collective identification, evaluation, and interpretation of the team’s core purpose, underlying tasks, available resources, and environmental constraints. Illustrative behaviors include auditing mission mandates, identifying operational hurdles, and cataloging necessary technological and logistical assets.
• Goal Specification (Setzen von Zielen): The formalization, prioritization, and structural alignment of collective performance targets. This involves establishing clear, quantifiable benchmarks, fostering a shared cognitive representation of desired endpoints across all team members, and aligning localized team objectives with broader organizational strategies.
• Strategy Formulation and Planning (Strategieformulierung & Planen): The systematic development of alternative courses of action, specialized contingency plans (“if X happens, then we execute Y”), role allocations, and operational roadmaps. This dimension also includes environmental scanning to determine when an existing tactical plan must be maintained or decisively altered.

2. Action Processes (Second-Order Dimension)

Action processes represent collective behavioral interactions that occur while teams are actively engaged in the operational execution of their primary taskwork. These behaviors ensure that task trajectories remain aligned with strategic objectives. The TP-M captures four first-order action subscales:

• Monitoring Progress Toward Goals (Monitoring des Zielfortschritts): Continuous, tracking-oriented behaviors whereby team members assess their current performance trajectory relative to predetermined milestones. This involves applying objective metrics, auditing progress reports, and actively soliciting timely stakeholder feedback.
• Systems Monitoring (Monitoring von Ressourcen & Umwelt): The proactive surveillance of internal and external environmental factors that could influence task execution. Internal systems monitoring involves tracking material resources, technological functionality, operational budgets, and inventory; external systems monitoring entails tracking shifting client requirements, supply chain interruptions, and competitive dynamics.
• Team Monitoring and Backup Behavior (Team Monitoring & Back-Up): Mutual behavioral surveillance and collaborative workload balancing. Team members actively monitor colleagues’ performance, maintain awareness of individual strain, establish collective performance standards, and provide direct task assistance or workload redistribution when fellow members experience cognitive or physical overload.
• Coordination (Koordination): The temporal, rhythmic, and behavioral synchronization of interdependent activities. Coordination ensures that individual actions are orchestrated seamlessly, eliminating workflow redundancies, preventing bottlenecks, and maintaining clear communication protocols across the team.

3. Interpersonal Processes (Second-Order Dimension)

Unlike transition and action processes, which vary cyclically depending on the performance phase, interpersonal processes operate continuously throughout a team’s lifecycle. They govern the relational foundation of the collective and maintain the social fabric required for collaborative resilience. The TP-M assesses three first-order interpersonal subscales:

• Conflict Management (Konfliktmanagement): Constructive strategies deployed to anticipate, minimize, or resolve task-related and interpersonal friction. This involves establishing equitable, respectful norms for handling disagreements, preserving mutual dignity, preventing task conflict from degenerating into destructive relationship conflict, and restoring group harmony.
• Motivating and Confidence Building (Gegenseitige Motivation): Collective verbal and behavioral affirmations designed to foster team efficacy, psychological momentum, and resilience. Behaviors include expressing collective pride in shared milestones, building confidence in the group’s shared capabilities (potency), and encouraging peers to achieve peak performance under demanding conditions.
• Affect Management (Umgang mit Emotionen): The active regulation of collective emotional climate and psychological strain. Behaviors encompass establishing shared coping mechanisms to mitigate work-related stress, managing frustration, cultivating a deep sense of belonging and solidarity, and maintaining psychological equilibrium across demanding operational cycles.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the TP-M is rooted in the Recurring Phase Model of Team Processes formulated by Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001). Prior to this model, organizational literature predominantly treated team processes as static, undifferentiated intermediary variables within conventional Input-Process-Output (I-P-O) models (McGrath, 1964). Marks and colleagues revolutionized team dynamics research by introducing a dynamic, temporal framework centered on the concept of performance episodes.

Performance episodes represent identifiable cycles over which team performance occurs and can be evaluated. Within this temporal continuum, teams do not operate in a continuous, unvarying operational state; rather, they alternate between distinct Transition Phases and Action Phases. Transition phases are taskwork-distal intervals characterized by retrospective evaluation and prospective planning. In contrast, action phases are taskwork-proximal periods during which team members engage directly in operations, manufacturing, coding, clinical treatment, or combat execution. Crucially, the model posits that high-performing teams demonstrate temporal agility, smoothly transitioning between these phases as task cycles unfold.

A central theoretical distinction formalized by Marks et al. (2001) and operationalized within the TP-M is the fundamental dichotomy between Taskwork and Teamwork. Taskwork represents what the team is doing—the specific technical, operational, and mechanical activities required to complete a given job. Teamwork represents how members interact, coordinate, communicate, and support one another while performing that taskwork. While transition and action processes represent phase-dependent components of taskwork execution, interpersonal processes represent pervasive teamwork behaviors that underpin social sustainability across all performance episodes.

A second foundational pillar of the TP-M’s theoretical design is compositional measurement theory for multilevel organizational research (Chan, 1998). Team processes represent inherently collective, group-level phenomena. Traditional self-report surveys often suffer from referent contamination by asking respondents about their personal behaviors (e.g., “I regularly check my goals”), creating a compositional mismatch when aggregating individual scores to represent team-level constructs. To overcome this limitation, the TP-M employs Chan’s (1998) reference-shift consensus model. Every item in the survey is explicitly framed around the collective entity (e.g., “Our team…”, “We…”). By intentionally shifting the cognitive referent from the individual self to the collective group, the TP-M captures shared perceptions of emergent behavioral regularities, establishing psychometric legitimacy for aggregating individual survey responses into team-level parameters via within-group agreement indices ($r_{wg(j)}$) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[1] and ICC[2]).

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations substantiate the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Team Processes Survey Measure across both its 30-item long form and 10-item short form. Empirical validation of the standardized German adaptation was conducted using a rigorous industrial sample comprising 210 employees nested within 41 innovation and engineering development teams in the German automotive sector. The analytical framework adhered to structural equation modeling paradigms and multisource validation criteria (Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was evaluated by competing confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models against plausible theoretical alternatives. As hypothesized by Marks et al. (2001), structural models that attempted to merge taskwork and teamwork or collapse all dimensions into an undifferentiated single factor exhibited inferior fit. A series of nested model comparisons revealed that the theoretical three-factor correlated model—separating Transition, Action, and Interpersonal processes—demonstrated superior fit across both the 30-item scale (Δχ² = 136.45, Δdf = 3, p < .001 compared to the unidimensional model) and the 10-item short scale (Δχ² = 32.25, Δdf = 3, p < .001). The structural distinction between operational task activities (transition and action) and relational maintenance (interpersonal processes) is evidenced by the substantial improvement in model parameters when taskwork and teamwork are modeled as correlated but distinct latent entities rather than conflated constructs.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is corroborated by statistically significant, high-magnitude standardized factor loadings across latent variables. Standardized loadings between manifest survey items and their respective first-order latent constructs ranged from .52 to .90 across all 30 indicators in the long form, indicating that the items capture substantial shared variance within their specified behavioral domains. Discriminant validity was examined through inter-factor correlations and comparative CFA model comparisons. Although the three overarching process dimensions correlate positively (reflecting the reality that competent teams typically execute multiple process categories effectively), two-factor models forcing correlations between Action and Interpersonal or Transition and Interpersonal processes produced significant decrements in model fit, demonstrating that the three process categories are empirically distinct.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Criterion-related validity was substantiated through established theoretical relationships with canonical organizational constructs. Mirroring the large-scale meta-analytic findings of LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul (2008)—which demonstrated consistent predictive associations between team processes and both objective team performance and member satisfaction—the TP-M scales demonstrated strong positive correlations with key team-level outcomes:

• Team Cohesion: Positive, statistically significant correlations emerged between interpersonal processes and affective group cohesion, confirming that teams practicing active conflict management and affect regulation exhibit higher social solidarity.
• Group Potency: Transition and action processes correlated strongly with collective potency beliefs, demonstrating that structured goal monitoring, strategic planning, and backup behavior bolster a team’s shared confidence in its performance capabilities.
• Team Effectiveness Indicators: Significant positive associations were observed across multidimensional indicators of team performance, project delivery adherence, and stakeholder satisfaction in technical innovation projects.

Reliability

The internal consistency and measurement precision of the TP-M were evaluated across multiple psychometric coefficients, including Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω), the latter providing an unbiased estimate under conditions of varying factor loadings (tau-heterogeneity). Across both the long and short forms, the instrument demonstrates robust reliability that meets or exceeds standard thresholds for organizational assessment and psychological research.

For the 30-item long form, internal consistency coefficients across the primary scales and subscales fall within acceptable to excellent parameters:

• Second-Order Scales: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the overarching dimensions range from .66 to .94, while McDonald’s omega coefficients range from .69 to .93. Interpersonal processes consistently display exceptional reliability (α ≥ .90, ω ≥ .91), driven by cohesive behavioral alignment across conflict management, mutual motivation, and affect management items.
• First-Order Subscales: The ten three-item subscales demonstrated satisfactory reliability, with alpha coefficients averaging across the .70 to .88 range. Subscales such as Coordination, Goal Specification, and Conflict Management exhibited particularly strong internal consistency.
• Item-Total Correlations: Part-whole corrected item-total correlations (Trennschärfe) confirmed solid discriminative capacity. Evaluated against the conventions of Bortz and Döring (2006), where item-total correlations ≥ .50 are classified as good and values < .30 indicate psychometric deficiency, the vast majority of TP-M items exceeded .50. Only Item 7 (Strategy Formulation) and Item 15 (Environmental Monitoring) displayed corrected correlations between .33 and .35 relative to their specific subscales, remaining safely above the .30 threshold while maintaining full theoretical coverage.

For the 10-item short form, internal consistency remained notably robust despite substantial item reduction. Alpha coefficients for the three shortened process composites remained between .74 and .86, demonstrating that the carefully selected marker items successfully preserve domain reliability without introducing excessive attenuation of measurement precision.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the TP-M was verified through rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using Maximum Likelihood estimation via IBM SPSS Amos 25 and JASP 0.11.1. Model evaluation adhered to conventional goodness-of-fit benchmarks (Mathieu & Taylor, 2006; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003): CFI ≥ .90 indicating acceptable fit (CFI ≥ .95 indicating excellent fit); RMSEA ≤ .08 indicating acceptable fit (RMSEA ≤ .05 indicating close fit); and SRMR ≤ .08 indicating good fit. Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and chi-square difference tests (Δχ²) were examined to assess parsimony among competing non-nested and nested structural solutions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the 30-Item Long Version

A hierarchical series of competing structural models was evaluated against empirical covariance matrices:

• Model 1 (Single-Factor Model): All ten first-order subscales loaded onto a single undifferentiated team processes factor. This model exhibited poor fit: χ² = 905.12, df = 395, χ²/df = 2.29, AIC = 967.86, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .086.
• Model 2 (Two-Factor Model A): Factor 1 combined Transition and Interpersonal processes (6 subscales); Factor 2 comprised Action processes (4 subscales). Fit remained poor: χ² = 866.95, df = 394, χ²/df = 2.20, AIC = 938.71, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .076, SRMR = .088 (Δχ² over 1-factor = 38.17, df = 1, p < .001).
• Model 3 (Two-Factor Model B): Factor 1 combined Action and Interpersonal processes (7 subscales); Factor 2 comprised Transition processes (3 subscales). Fit was similarly deficient: χ² = 858.32, df = 394, χ²/df = 2.18, AIC = 929.77, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .075, SRMR = .086 (Δχ² over 1-factor = 46.83, df = 1, p < .001).
• Model 4 (Two-Factor Model C – Taskwork vs. Teamwork): Factor 1 combined Transition and Action processes (7 subscales representing Taskwork); Factor 2 isolated Interpersonal processes (3 subscales representing Teamwork). This theoretically grounded model improved fit substantially: χ² = 788.09, df = 394, χ²/df = 2.00, AIC = 868.74, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .069, SRMR = .073 (Δχ² over 1-factor = 117.03, df = 1, p < .001).
• Model 5 (Hypothesized Three-Factor Correlated Model): Subscales loaded onto their respective theoretical factors: Transition (3 subscales), Action (4 subscales), and Interpersonal (3 subscales). This model achieved the best fit: χ² = 768.67, df = 392, χ²/df = 1.96, AIC = 856.16, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .071. Statistical comparisons demonstrated that Model 5 fit significantly better than Model 4 (Δχ² = 19.42, Δdf = 2, p < .001), Model 3 (Δχ² = 89.65, Δdf = 2, p < .001), and Model 2 (Δχ² = 98.28, Δdf = 2, p < .001).

While the CFI value of .90 sits at the threshold of acceptability, this outcome parallels findings reported by Mathieu et al. (2019) for the original English instrument. As articulated by Mathieu and colleagues, CFI attenuation is common in complex hierarchical models featuring ten latent subscales, large degrees of freedom, and moderate inter-factor correlations, whereas absolute fit indices (RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .071) confirm a solid structural fit.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the 10-Item Short Version

An identical progression of CFA models was evaluated using the 10 marker items selected for the short form. The hypothesized three-factor model yielded superior psychometric properties compared to all competing specifications:

• 1-Factor Model: χ² = 105.78, df = 35, χ²/df = 3.02, AIC = 145.78, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .098, SRMR = .064.
• 2-Factor Model (Transition + Interpersonal vs. Action): χ² = 97.47, df = 34, χ²/df = 2.87, AIC = 139.47, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .095, SRMR = .062.
• 2-Factor Model (Action + Interpersonal vs. Transition): χ² = 93.83, df = 34, χ²/df = 2.76, AIC = 135.83, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .092, SRMR = .062.
• 2-Factor Model (Taskwork vs. Teamwork): χ² = 82.14, df = 34, χ²/df = 2.42, AIC = 124.14, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .082, SRMR = .057.
• Hypothesized 3-Factor Model: χ² = 73.53, df = 32, χ²/df = 2.30, AIC = 119.53, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .055.

Chi-square difference tests confirmed that the 3-factor short model significantly outperformed the 1-factor model (Δχ² = 32.25, Δdf = 3, p < .001) as well as the 2-factor Taskwork/Teamwork model (Δχ² = 8.61, Δdf = 2, p < .05), confirming structural equivalence across both scale lengths.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications, administration protocols, and scoring standards for the Team Processes Survey Measure are organized as follows:

• Test Type: Multi-item, collective-referent psychometric survey designed for individual administration with aggregation to the team/group level of analysis.
• Administration Format: Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI / CSAQ) via web-based survey software; paper-and-pencil formats are equally viable.
• Scale Versions:
  • Long Version: 30 items measuring 10 first-order subscales nested within 3 second-order dimensions (approximate completion time: 6 minutes).
  • Short Version: 10 items containing 1 marker item per subscale, measuring the 3 second-order dimensions (approximate completion time: 2 minutes).
• Target Population: Members of semi-autonomous, project, development, operational, or executive teams across diverse industrial sectors, government bodies, or healthcare systems.
• Referent Model: Reference-Shift Consensus Model (Chan, 1998). Items explicitly instruct respondents to rate the collective performance behaviors of their specified group rather than individual behaviors.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = überhaupt nicht (not at all)
  • 2 = sehr wenig (very little)
  • 3 = zum Teil (to some extent)
  • 4 = in hohem Maße (to a high extent)
  • 5 = in sehr hohem Maße (to a very high extent)
• Item Polarity and Directionality: All 30 items are positively formulated; no reverse scoring is required.
• Scoring and Index Computation:
  • Unweighted additive mean scores should be computed for each subscale and overarching dimension.
  • For the 30-item long form, calculate indices for Transition Processes (Items 1–9), Action Processes (Items 10–21), and Interpersonal Processes (Items 22–30), or separate indices across all 10 three-item subscales for granular diagnosis.
  • For the 10-item short form, calculate indices for Transition Processes (Items 2, 5, 7), Action Processes (Items 12, 14, 18, 21), and Interpersonal Processes (Items 22, 27, 30).
• Missing Data Protocols:
  • For individual respondents, a subscale score in the long form should only be calculated if at least two valid responses are present (maximum of one missing item per 3-item subscale).
  • At the dimensional scale level, valid scores require that the respondent completed at least 50% of the corresponding scale items.
  • Cases with > 20% overall missing survey data should be excluded from team-level aggregation analyses. Expectation-Maximization Algorithm (EMA) imputation may be utilized for marginal missingness.
• Aggregation Requirements: Prior to aggregating individual scores to form group-level metrics, researchers must confirm statistical agreement and reliability across group members by calculating within-group interrater agreement ($r_{wg(j)}$ ≥ .70), intraclass correlation for individual rating reliability (ICC[1]), and group-mean reliability (ICC[2] ≥ .70).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The English foundational taxonomy was published by Mathieu, Luciano, D’Innocenzo, Klock, and LePine in 2019 in the Journal of Management. The German-language adaptation and validation study were established following data collection in German industrial innovation settings. Both the original 30-item scale, the 10-item short version, and the German translation are published for open scientific and non-commercial educational use within academic and organizational research. Researchers and applied practitioners are granted permission to employ the instrument free of charge, provided that full bibliographic attribution is granted to the scale authors (Mathieu et al., 2019; Marks et al., 2001). Commercial software platforms, assessment vendors, or fee-charging consultancies seeking to integrate the TP-M into proprietary commercial diagnostic suites should obtain permission from the copyright-holding academic publishers.

References

The theoretical, methodological, and psychometric foundations of the TP-M are documented in the following peer-reviewed literature:

• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4. Aufl.). Springer-Verlag. 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
• 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/10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.234
• LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
• 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
• Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.97
• Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
• Mathieu, J. E., Luciano, M. M., D’Innocenzo, L., Klock, C. G., & LePine, J. A. (2019). The development and validation of a short-form measure of team processes: A multi-study investigation. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1093–1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319875883
• Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625
• Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1031–1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.406
• McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676401700201
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.1026//1614-2241.1.2.71
• Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324379

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)