The aim of this study was to develop a scale to measure group functioning in work groups. The scale was developed based on the Integrative Model of Group Development. There were 76 individuals who participated in the study. There were 15 groups that participated in this study. The sample was drawn from an organisation in Johannesburg. The research design was non-experimental and cross-sectional in nature. The data collected were analysed using factor analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient and discriminant analysis. The results showed that the overall scale had two subscales which showed strong reliabilities. The implications of the findings are that further research is needed to match stages of group development with the behaviour of individuals in organisations. The findings indicate that more research on group functioning in the South African work context is required.

The need for successful grouping of children in the primary school has been personally felt by the writer of this paper many times in her own classroom. In the years that have passed, some groups have seemed to progress quite satisfactorily in total development, while others have seemed disappointingly slow. Some groups have worked in almost perfect harmony while others have been in conflict. What dynamics were at work that contributed to successful grouping? What forces had retarded desirable growth? Much has been written recently about successful grouping of children. Enlightening evidences of good grouping practices have been reported. While some actual research studies have been conducted, most of the literature sampled reported opinions or individual suggestions for practice. The plan for this paper is to summarize the literature reviewed in the light of grouping according to the needs of children. / "A Paper." / Typescript. / "Submitted to the Graduate Council of Florida State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science." / Advisor: W. Edwards, Professor Directing Paper. / Includes bibliographical references.

Ma Man-sze = 香港中學女子籃球隊團隊凝聚力與教練訓練模式之研究 / 馬汶詩. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 92-116). / Text in English; abstracts in English and Chinese. / Ma Man-sze = Xianggang zhong xue nü zi lan qiu dui tuan dui ning ju li yu jiao lian xun lian mo shi zhi yan jiu / Ma Wenshi. / Abstract --- p.i / Acknowledgement --- p.iii / List of Tables --- p.ix / List of Figures --- p.x / Chapter CHAPTER ONE --- Introduction --- p.1 / Background --- p.1 / Purpose of the Study --- p.5 / Definition of Terms --- p.6 / Delimitations --- p.6 / Limitations --- p.6 / Significance of the Study --- p.7 / Chapter CHAPTER TWO --- Review of Literature --- p.8 / Different Definitions of Group --- p.8 / Sport and Exercise Group Dynamics Models --- p.10 / Group Cohesion in Sport Context --- p.12 / Relationship between Performance and Cohesion --- p.13 / Other Outcomes --- p.17 / Carroll's Conceptual Model --- p.18 / Situational Factors --- p.19 / Contractual Responsibilities --- p.19 / Size of Team --- p.20 / Personal Factors --- p.20 / Gender --- p.20 / Adherence Behavior --- p.21 / Team Factors --- p.21 / Group Norms --- p.21 / Collective Efficacy --- p.22 / Leadership Factors --- p.23 / Leadership Behavior --- p.23 / Decision Style --- p.23 / Leadership --- p.28 / Studies on Coaching Leadership in Sport --- p.29 / The Multidimensional Model of Leadership --- p.31 / Required Leader Behavior --- p.31 / Leader Behavior Preferred by the Athlete --- p.31 / Actual Leader Behavior --- p.31 / Performance and Satisfaction --- p.31 / Situational CharacteristicśؤCulture --- p.32 / Philosophical Background of Chinese Society --- p.34 / Propriety (Li) --- p.35 / Filial Piety (Xiao) --- p.35 / Importance of Family in Chinese Society --- p.36 / Cultural Difference between Western and Chinese Society --- p.37 / Individualism Vs Collectivism --- p.37 / Cross-Cultural Studies --- p.38 / Personality --- p.38 / Intergenerational Communication --- p.39 / Conflict-Handling Behavior --- p.40 / Communication Style --- p.41 / Business Organization --- p.42 / Leadership --- p.44 / Leader characteristicśؤGender --- p.46 / Gender Roles --- p.47 / Role Conflicts --- p.50 / Summary --- p.53 / Chapter CHAPTER THREE --- Method --- p.55 / Participants --- p.55 / Instrumentation --- p.55 / Demographic Information --- p.55 / Measuring Group Cohesion --- p.56 / Measuring Perceived and Preferred Coaching Behavior --- p.57 / Measuring Team Success --- p.59 / Procedures --- p.59 / Statistical Analysis --- p.60 / Chapter CHAPTER FOUR --- Results --- p.61 / Preferred Coaching Behavior of Players' --- p.61 / Relationship of Coaching Behavior and Group Cohesion --- p.62 / Differences in Cohesion between Winning and Losing Teams Across Season --- p.64 / Gender Difference in the Perceived Behavior Across Season --- p.65 / Chapter CHAPTER FIVE --- Discussion --- p.66 / Overall Preferred Coaching Behavior --- p.66 / Relationships between Perceived Coaching Behavior and Group Cohesion Across Season --- p.69 / Individual Attractions to Group-Task (ATG-T) --- p.69 / Individual Attractions to Group-Social (ATG-S) --- p.73 / Group Integration-Task (GI-T) --- p.75 / Group Integration-Social (GI-S) --- p.78 / Differences in Group Cohesion between Winning and Losing Teams Across Season --- p.80 / Gender Differences in Perceived Coaching Behavior Across Season --- p.84 / Summary and Conclusion --- p.87 / Limitations and Recommendations --- p.89 / References --- p.92 / Appendix A --- p.117 / Appendix B --- p.118 / Appendix C --- p.119 / Appendix D --- p.122 / Appendix E --- p.126 / Appendix F --- p.130 / Appendix G --- p.131 / Appendix H --- p.132 / Appendix I --- p.133 / Appendix J --- p.135 / Appendix K --- p.137

Doctorat en sciences psychologiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

This study examined the relationship of group cohesion among heterogeneous and homogeneous groups on individual treatment outcome of child-parent relationship therapy (CPRT). CPRT is a filial therapy model that targets the parent-child relationship as a means for preventing or improving child and/or family problems. This study included 30 parents or caregivers from 9 groups which met for 10 sessions. Participants qualified for this study if their groups ended with at least 3 group members and 2 leaders, all pretest and posttest data on their child between the ages of 2-11 was completed, and if they attended at least 6 of the 10 sessions. Correlation coefficients, t-tests, and effect sizes were calculated. Results demonstrated no statistically significant differences between pretests and posttests on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) for all 30 participants; however, differences in measured effect (η2) between children identified with borderline and clinical behavior problems and children with normal behavior problems suggest that CPRT is more effective among children who demonstrate significant behavior problems. Perceived and observed group cohesion measurements demonstrated no significant difference at the individual outcome level. This finding suggests that group cohesion may not be related to individual outcome. Although there was no significant relationship between group cohesion and individual outcome for this study, results of the group measurements regarding engagement and group cohesiveness, coupled with previous studies on CPRT effectiveness, suggest that CPRT should be utilized in homogeneous groups.