Erim Hester Duursema[hr].pdf

Table 9-3: ICC’s and interrater agreement scores for leadership dimensions

Table 9.3 shows acceptable intraclass correlations I (ICC(I) and interrater agreement scores for most
of the dimensions. ICC(2) scores were around .60 or higher. Two scores were very close to .60, and
given that previous studies have accepted lower values as sufficient for aggregation (de Hoogh et al.,
2004; Simsek et al., 2010) these scores were also considered acceptable.

The team effectiveness measures were drawn from different previous studies. In order to check
whether indeed 4 different factors were present in the data set, a confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted on the four team effectiveness scores resulted in the following statistics X^2 = 90.423,
df=48, p<.01, CFI = .922, TLI =.893, AIC = 4055.031, SRMR = .074 and RMSEA=.077

Before averaging the self-scores for each team, intraclass correlations and interrater agreement
(James, 1982) were tested for all team measures, i.e. the four team effectiveness measures (see Table
9.4).

Table 9-4: ICC’s and interrater agreement scores for team effectiveness measures

All scores justified aggregation from individual scores to team scores, showing high interrater
agreement and interrater reliability. Table 9.5 shows the descriptive statistics, the internal reliability
and the intercorrelations and Cronbach alphas of the team measures.