Literature DB >> 32813224

Sensor-based proximity metrics for team research. A validation study across three organizational contexts.

Jörg Müller1, Julio Meneses2, Anne Laure Humbert3, Elisabeth Anna Guenther4.   

Abstract

Wearable sensors are becoming increasingly popular in organizational research. Although validation studies that examine sensor data in conjunction with established social and psychological constructs are becoming more frequent, they are usually limited for two reasons: first, most validation studies are carried out under laboratory settings. Only a handful of studies have been carried out in real-world organizational environments. Second, for those studies carried out in field settings, reported findings are derived from a single case only, thus seriously limiting the possibility of studying the influence of contextual factors on sensor-based measurements. This article presents a validation study of expressive and instrumental ties across nine relatively small R&D teams. The convergent validity of Bluetooth (BT) detections is reported for friendship and advice-seeking ties under three organizational contexts: research labs, private companies, and university-based teams. Results show that, in general, BT detections correlated strongly with self-reported measurements. However, the organizational context affects both the strength of the observed correlation and its direction. Whereas advice-seeking ties generally occur in close spatial proximity and are best identified in university environments, friendship relationships occur at a greater spatial distance, especially in research labs. We conclude with recommendations for fine-tuning the validity of sensor measurements by carefully examining the opportunities for organizational embedding in relation to the research question and collecting complementary data through mixed-method research designs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bluetooth; Mixed-methods; Organizational context; Team science; Wearable sensors

Year:  2021        PMID: 32813224     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-020-01444-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  11 in total

1.  Clustering by well-being in workplace social networks: Homophily and social contagion.

Authors:  Joseph Chancellor; Kristin Layous; Seth Margolis; Sonja Lyubomirsky
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2017-03-30

2.  Location choices of face-to-face interactions in academic buildings: an experience sampling approach.

Authors:  Minou Weijs-Perrée; Lorell Buck; Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek; Theo Arentze
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Who talks to whom about what? How interdisciplinary communication and knowledge of expertise distribution improve in integrated R&D labs.

Authors:  Mareike Heinzen; Eugenia Cacciatori; Frank A Zoller; Roman Boutellier
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  cocor: a comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations.

Authors:  Birk Diedenhofen; Jochen Musch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Measuring social integration and tie strength with smartphone and survey data.

Authors:  Agnete S Dissing; Cynthia M Lakon; Thomas A Gerds; Naja H Rod; Rikke Lund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The strength of friendship ties in proximity sensor data.

Authors:  Vedran Sekara; Sune Lehmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Are You Your Friends' Friend? Poor Perception of Friendship Ties Limits the Ability to Promote Behavioral Change.

Authors:  Abdullah Almaatouq; Laura Radaelli; Alex Pentland; Erez Shmueli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  New Frontiers in Analyzing Dynamic Group Interactions: Bridging Social and Computer Science.

Authors:  Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock; Hayley Hung; Joann Keyton
Journal:  Small Group Res       Date:  2017-07-14

9.  Measuring dynamic social contacts in a rehabilitation hospital: effect of wards, patient and staff characteristics.

Authors:  Audrey Duval; Thomas Obadia; Lucie Martinet; Pierre-Yves Boëlle; Eric Fleury; Didier Guillemot; Lulla Opatowski; Laura Temime
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Estimating the epidemic risk using non-uniformly sampled contact data.

Authors:  Julie Fournet; Alain Barrat
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.