Collective Orientation Scale

Abstract

The Collective Orientation Scale (German: Skala zur Erfassung der Kollektiven Orientierung [KO]) is a standardized self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s propensity and attitude toward working collaboratively, interdependently, and cooperatively within team settings. Grounded in the foundational team psychology frameworks articulated by Eduardo Salas and James E. Driskell, and formally adapted and expanded into the German-speaking organizational context by Dr. Vera Hagemann, the scale operationalizes collective orientation as an essential non-technical skill and dispositional attribute. Across organizational, educational, and high-reliability environments, collective orientation represents a primary determinant of cooperative behavior, coordination efficiency, shared mental model development, and overall team performance.

The fully validated instrument comprises 16 items organized across two correlated first-order latent dimensions: Affiliation (Zugehörigkeit; 10 items) and Dominance (Dominanz; 6 items, negatively keyed). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“stimme nicht zu” / strongly disagree) to 5 (“stimme sehr zu” / strongly agree). The psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated across three empirical investigations involving a total sample of over 1,020 respondents, including employees from general business and corporate sectors, personnel from high-risk organizations (e.g., emergency medical services, firefighting, police, and military units), and university students. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated excellent structural validity for a two-factor second-order model (χ²/df = 1.76, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .040, SRMR = .043). The instrument exhibits robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega reaching .84 to .85 for the overall scale, .85 to .86 for the Affiliation subscale, and .74 for the Dominance subscale. Laboratory behavioral trials utilizing complex interdependent decision-making tasks (hidden profile paradigm) and negotiation tasks (“Lost at Sea”) demonstrated strong criterion-related and predictive validity, confirming that teams composed of individuals with high collective orientation significantly outperform teams characterized by low collective orientation. Consequently, the instrument serves as an invaluable diagnostic and evaluative tool for personnel selection, crew resource management, and team development interventions.

Keywords

Collective Orientation, team psychology, interdependent teamwork, Affiliation, Dominance, high-reliability organizations, psychometrics, team performance, cooperation, shared decision-making, Driskell, Hagemann

Authors

The theoretical framework and initial English-language operationalization of the collective orientation construct were established by James E. Driskell (Florida Consortium for Research in Data and Psychological Sciences / Spelman College), Eduardo Salas (Rice University / formerly University of Central Florida), and Gavin F. Hughes (University of Central Florida). Their foundational work conceptualized collective orientation as a fundamental personality-based attitude that differentiates individualists from team-oriented personnel in military and aerospace operational settings.

The German adaptation, theoretical refinement, psychometric expansion, and criterion-related experimental validation were conducted by Dr. Vera Hagemann, Professor of Work, Organizational, and Business Psychology. Dr. Hagemann developed the instrument through extensive research initiatives affiliated with the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Duisburg-Essen and the Institute of Psychology at the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. Her scholarly inquiry focuses predominantly on team performance under acute stress, crew resource management (CRM), non-technical skills in high-risk industries (such as emergency medicine, aviation, and civil defense), and the structural dynamics of interdependent collaboration.

Purpose

Modern organizational structures increasingly rely on work teams rather than isolated individual contributors to solve complex, multifaceted, and volatile problems. However, assembling technically proficient individuals into a group does not inherently produce an effective team. Extensive empirical research in industrial and organizational psychology demonstrates that teamwork failures frequently stem not from deficits in technical expertise or domain knowledge, but rather from deficits in interpersonal attitudes, cooperative orientation, and behavioral coordination. The primary purpose of the Collective Orientation Scale is to provide a reliable, valid, and economically administered diagnostic instrument capable of assessing an individual’s inclination to work collaboratively, solicit and integrate input from teammates, and prioritize collective mission success over individual autonomy and dominance.

The scale was developed to address critical diagnostic and developmental requirements across several specific organizational and research contexts:

• Personnel Selection and Crew Staffing: When staffing intact teams, project groups, or mission-critical crews, organizational decision-makers require predictive measures of interpersonal compatibility and teamwork aptitude. High technical competence paired with an excessively dominant or autonomous disposition often disrupts crew communication and psychological safety. The scale allows organizations to screen candidates for interdependent work settings where individualistic isolation poses systemic risks.
• High-Reliability Organizations (HROs): In safety-critical sectors—such as trauma resuscitation teams operating in hospital shock rooms, structural firefighting crews entering burning structures, law enforcement tactical units, and flight decks—miscommunication and autonomous unilateral decision-making can precipitate catastrophic failures. The scale provides safety managers and human factors specialists with an empirically validated baseline of crew members’ non-technical teamwork inclinations.
• Team Diagnostic Audits and Conflict Resolution: Within existing organizational units experiencing interpersonal friction, coordination breakdown, or fragmented decision-making, the scale functions as a diagnostic tool to pinpoint whether team dysfunction originates from low affiliation (reluctance to rely on colleagues) or excessive dominance (unwillingness to yield dogmatic opinions during consensus-building).
• Evaluation of Training Interventions: Organizations investing in Team Resource Management (TRM), Crew Resource Management (CRM), or team-building workshops require sensitive pre- and post-intervention evaluation metrics. The scale provides a standardized index to track changes in teamwork attitudes following experiential learning and simulation-based training modules.
• Academic and Applied Psychological Research: The scale enables researchers to examine the mediating and moderating mechanisms through which individual-level dispositions aggregate to predict meso-level team processes (such as coordination, collective efficacy, psychological safety, and shared mental models) and macro-level organizational performance outcomes.

Psychological Construct

Collective Orientation (CO) is conceptualized as a stable individual-level attitude and behavioral predisposition that reflects a person’s propensity to function cooperatively, interdependently, and goal-orientedly within group contexts. Rather than viewing teamwork merely as an external situational demand or a mechanical set of behaviors, collective orientation captures an internal cognitive-affective schema through which individuals perceive, evaluate, and engage with team tasks. Individuals possessing a high collective orientation inherently recognize that collective problem-solving yields superior outcomes compared to isolated effort, actively value the contributions of peers, and naturally coordinate their actions to achieve superordinate goals.

Psychometrically and structurally, the Collective Orientation construct operates as a second-order latent variable manifested through two distinct yet complementary first-order dimensions: Affiliation (Zugehörigkeit) and Dominance (Dominanz).

1. Affiliation (Zugehörigkeit)

The Affiliation dimension captures an individual’s positive emotional and motivational disposition toward collaborative enterprise versus solo task execution. High scorers on this dimension derive genuine intrinsic satisfaction from working within groups, acknowledge that interdependent collaboration enhances productivity, and demonstrate willingness to trust and rely upon colleagues. The psychological characteristics of this dimension include:

• Preference for Interdependent Action: A behavioral preference for collective brainstorming, mutual assistance, and shared workload over isolated execution. Conversely, low affiliation manifests as a strong compulsion to complete tasks entirely on one’s own, accompanied by skepticism regarding the competence or reliability of peers.
• Receptivity to Peer Input: Active solicitation of divergent perspectives and information prior to finalizing tactical or strategic actions. Low-affiliation individuals exhibit an impatient tendency to “take the bull by the horns” unilaterally rather than waiting for critical peer feedback.
• Belief in Team Synergistic Efficacy: The cognitive conviction that team collaboration generates creative synergy and delivers higher-quality results than can be achieved by an individual working in isolation.

2. Dominance (Dominanz)

The Dominance dimension reflects an individual’s orientation toward interpersonal control, dogmatism, and egocentric stubbornness during group deliberations. Within the structural architecture of the Collective Orientation construct, dominance is negatively valenced; that is, low dominance is a defining prerequisite for high collective orientation. Highly collectively oriented individuals value egalitarian collaboration, consensus, and epistemic flexibility over personal authority and control. Key aspects include:

• Epistemic Flexibility vs. Dogmatic Rigidity: The capacity to revise one’s initial assumptions or opinions when confronted with compelling counterarguments or novel evidentiary data provided by team members. Highly dominant individuals stubbornly adhere to their original stance regardless of contrary peer consensus.
• Subordination of Ego to Group Objectives: The willingness to negotiate and compromise rather than viewing intellectual disagreement as an interpersonal power struggle. High dominance manifests as the urge to impose one’s personal gut feelings and opinions onto others, frequently ignoring group deliberative processes.
• Constructive Conflict Resolution: Low-dominance individuals treat cognitive friction as an opportunity for joint sensemaking and problem clarification, whereas dominant individuals perceive consensus-seeking as a sign of weakness and maintain their positions unyieldingly.

Theoretical Framework

The Collective Orientation Scale is rooted in modern socio-cognitive models of team performance, interpersonal circumplex theory, and the social psychology of group dynamics. The foundational architecture rests upon theoretical contributions from Driskell, Salas, and colleagues, alongside classic social interdependence and task taxonomy paradigms.

The Salas and Driskell Model of Teamwork Competencies

In their classic framework of teamwork competencies, Eduardo Salas and James E. Driskell distinguished between two fundamental components of workplace functioning: taskwork (what teams do—the specific operational skills, procedures, and technical execution required by a job) and teamwork (how teams function—the behavioral, cognitive, and affective processes that allow members to synchronize their actions). While traditional human resource assessment heavily emphasized taskwork competence, Salas and Driskell posited that interdependent systems break down when teamwork competencies are neglected.

Within their taxonomy of teamwork competencies, non-technical capabilities are categorized into knowledge (shared mental models), skills (mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, communication), and attitudes. Collective orientation was identified as the core foundational attitude. According to Driskell and Salas (1992), collective orientation acts as a psychological catalyst: individuals who hold positive attitudes toward collectivism are markedly more receptive to teammate communications, more likely to provide unsolicited backup assistance, and significantly more inclined to align individual behavior with team requirements. Conversely, egocentric or individualistic team members prioritize personal visibility and autonomy, undermining mutual trust and coordination.

Interpersonal Circumplex Foundations: Affiliation and Dominance

The structural bifurcation of Collective Orientation into Affiliation and Dominance reflects classic interpersonal circumplex theory originally formalized by Timothy Leary and further refined by Jerry S. Wiggins. The interpersonal circumplex maps human social interaction along two orthogonal primary axes: Agency (Dominance vs. Submissiveness / Control) and Communion (Affiliation vs. Hostility / Nurturance). Driskell, Salas, and Hughes (2010) integrated this dimensional paradigm into team science, noting that optimal team players occupy the warm, collaborative quadrant: characterized by high communal affiliation (seeking connection, mutual reliance, and group solidarity) combined with low agency/dominance (avoiding authoritarian control, dogmatic posturing, or interpersonal subjugation).

Task Interdependence and McGrath’s Task Taxonomy

The practical necessity of collective orientation is theoretically contingent upon the level of task interdependence. As formulated in organizational literature, task interdependence defines the structural degree to which team members must exchange resources, information, and physical effort to achieve successful task completion. In additive or pooled tasks (where individual outputs are simply summed), collective orientation exerts minimal influence on final performance. However, in reciprocal, intensive, and collaborative tasks—such as those categorized under Joseph E. McGrath’s Task Taxonomy (specifically McGrath’s quadrants involving cooperative decision-making, cognitive conflict resolution, and negotiation)—collective orientation becomes the critical performance driver. Under conditions of high task interdependence, low collective orientation induces cognitive bottlenecks, task fragmentation, and adversarial negotiation dynamics.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive (criterion-related) validity of the German Collective Orientation Scale was rigorously established through an extensive three-stage empirical research program involving 1,028 participants across diverse organizational and experimental contexts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Structural validity was verified using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across two independent large-scale samples:

• Study 1 (N = 500): Evaluated the original 15-item translated inventory. The analysis revealed that three items exhibited psychometric deficiencies (factor loadings below .25 and adverse modification indices), failing to meet theoretical thresholds. Removal of these items yielded an initial 12-item two-factor solution exhibiting strong statistical fit (χ² = 74.46, df = 43, p = .002, χ²/df = 1.73, CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .038 [90% CI: .023, .053], SRMR = .05). The latent factor correlation between Affiliation and Dominance was r = .21 (p < .01).
• Study 2 (N = 468): Conducted to expand and psychometrically enhance the inventory within the German cultural and linguistic context by incorporating seven newly drafted items. Following iterative CFA testing, four newly developed items (Items 13 to 16) were retained, while three items with loadings below .40 were excised. The final 16-item two-factor model (with KO specified as a second-order general factor) demonstrated outstanding overall goodness-of-fit: χ² = 162.25, df = 92, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.76, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .040 [90% CI: .030, .051], SRMR = .043. The correlation between the latent factors was r = .44 (p < .001).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Subsamples from Study 1 (n = 223) and Study 2 (n = 244) completed extensive comparative psychometric batteries measuring related interpersonal and dispositional constructs:

• Convergent Validity: The scale demonstrated strong, statistically significant positive correlations with validated measures of Cooperation, Social Interdependence, and the Big Five personality trait of Agreeableness. Moderate positive associations were observed with Extraversion and team psychological safety measures.
• Discriminant Validity: The Collective Orientation Scale demonstrated distinct divergence from individualism, preference for solitude, and authoritarian control. Furthermore, statistical discriminant validity between the Affiliation and Dominance subscales was verified using the Fornell-Larcker criterion: while the average variance extracted (AVE / DEV) was 0.38 for Affiliation and 0.37 for Dominance, the squared latent factor correlation (coefficient of determination, r²) was only 0.19. Because the minimum AVE (0.37) substantially exceeded the shared variance between factors (0.19), the empirical distinctiveness of the two sub-dimensions was confirmed.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity (Study 3)

To demonstrate that self-reported collective orientation predicts objective, observable behavioral outcomes during collaborative work, Study 3 (N = 60 university students; 47 female; mean age = 21.17, SD = 2.76) implemented a laboratory experimental design utilizing interdependent team performance criteria. Participants were classified via median split (Md = 3.07, range 1.80–4.33) into high versus low collective orientation cohorts one week prior to experimental manipulation. From these cohorts, twenty 3-person teams were constructed: 10 teams composed exclusively of high-CO individuals, and 10 teams composed of low-CO individuals. All teams completed two complex, interdependent tasks selected from McGrath’s Task Taxonomy:

• Interdependent Decision-Making Task (Hidden Profile Paradigm): Teams engaged in a computer-mediated investigative problem-solving task designed by Piontkowski et al. (2003). To correctly identify a criminal perpetrator from among eight suspects, members had to share and synthesize 84 discrete informational cues distributed across individual text profiles. No single member possessed sufficient unshared data to solve the case alone. Objective decision quality was scored on an index ranging from -1 (erroneous verdict) to +1 (unanimous, accurate identification). Teams composed of high-CO individuals achieved significantly higher decision quality scores, engaged in more systematic unshared information pooling, and reached consensus far more effectively than low-CO teams.
• Interdependent Negotiation Task (“Lost at Sea”): Teams completed a classic survival ranking task requiring face-to-face negotiation to prioritize 15 survival items in order of utility. Individual rankings were established first, followed by consensus-driven group ranking. Objective performance was quantified as the absolute sum of deviations between the team’s agreed ranking and a gold-standard expert maritime ranking (possible deviation scores: 0 to 210, where lower scores indicate superior team performance). High-CO teams exhibited significantly smaller deviation sums from expert solutions compared to low-CO teams, demonstrating superior conflict resolution, cooperative deliberation, and effective integration of group member insights.

Reliability

The Collective Orientation Scale demonstrates high internal consistency and measurement precision across heterogeneous demographic and occupational samples. In psychometric evaluations, reliability was evaluated using both traditional parametric indices (Cronbach’s alpha, α) and modern structural equation modeling indices (McDonald’s omega, ω), which avoid the restrictive assumption of tau-equivalence.

Across the validation investigations, the empirical reliability parameters were established as follows:

• Overall Collective Orientation Scale (16 Items):
  • Cronbach’s Alpha: α = .84 (indicating strong internal consistency exceeding standard applied research benchmarks; DeVellis, 2003).
  • McDonald’s Omega: ω = .85 (confirming robust composite reliability for the overall second-order structural model).
• Affiliation Subscale (Zugehörigkeit; 10 Items):
  • Cronbach’s Alpha: α = .85.
  • McDonald’s Omega: ω = .86.
  • Item-total correlations ranged between .45 and .72, confirming strong common variance among items assessing communal teamwork satisfaction and cooperative reliance.
• Dominance Subscale (Dominanz; 6 Items):
  • Cronbach’s Alpha: α = .74.
  • McDonald’s Omega: ω = .74.
  • Item-total correlations ranged between .39 and .63, demonstrating acceptable and homogenous measurement of dogmatism, interpersonal obstinacy, and autonomous control tendencies.

In addition to classical internal consistency, the stability of item parameter estimates across Study 1 (N = 500) and Study 2 (N = 468) demonstrates remarkable measurement replication across diverse occupational groups, spanning corporate administrative personnel, academic cohorts, and tactical operators in high-risk organizations.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Collective Orientation Scale was rigorously explored and confirmed via exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies using SPSS Amos software.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (Study 1)

Prior to confirmatory structural modeling, an exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis with oblique Promax rotation) was conducted on the initial item pool. Examination of the resulting scree plot, alongside Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion (Kaiser-Guttman rule), unambiguously indicated a two-factor latent structure corresponding directly to the theoretical constructs of Affiliation and Dominance. Items cleanly clustered on their designated theoretical axes without substantial cross-loadings, although three items demonstrated low primary factor saturation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Respecification (Study 1 & Study 2)

Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing maximum likelihood estimation were conducted on complete case datasets to prevent distortion from data imputation. Model adequacy was judged against established cutoff criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000): CFI and TLI ≥ .95 for excellent fit (≥ .90 acceptable), RMSEA ≤ .06 for close fit (≤ .08 acceptable), SRMR ≤ .08, and χ²/df ratios between 1.0 and 3.0.

• Study 1 CFA: The initial 15-item model adapted from Driskell et al. (2010) was tested. Three items (designated E1, E2, and E5) failed to meet retention criteria due to factor loadings below .25 and non-satisfactory model fit contributions. Removal of these items and inclusion of error covariances between items sharing parallel linguistic formulations produced an adjusted 12-item model exhibiting excellent fit: χ²(43) = 74.46, p = .002, χ²/df = 1.73, CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .038 (90% CI: .023, .053), SRMR = .05. Factor loadings for Affiliation ranged from .34 to .72; for Dominance, loadings ranged from .28 to .95.
• Study 2 CFA and Scale Extension: To strengthen scale coverage and contextual validity in German organizational environments, seven newly developed items were evaluated alongside the 12 retained items. Three experimental items (E3, E4, and E6) exhibited loadings below .40 and were pruned. The resulting 16-item final scale (10 Affiliation items, 6 Dominance items) confirmed a robust two-factor second-order model: χ²(92) = 162.25, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.76, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .040 (90% CI: .030, .051), SRMR = .043. Standardized factor loadings across all 16 items exceeded .40 and were statistically significant (p < .001). Specifically, Affiliation items demonstrated loadings ranging between .45 and .72, while Dominance items demonstrated loadings ranging between .39 and .63. The latent factor correlation was r = .44 (p < .001).

Item Distributional Properties

Analysis of distributional properties in the validation samples indicated normal univariate distributions across all retained items. In Study 2, item means ranged from 2.79 to 3.90, with standard deviations between 0.92 and 1.14. Skewness indices ranged from -0.82 to 0.23 (SE = 0.11), and kurtosis values ranged from -1.03 to 0.33 (SE = 0.23), confirming the absence of severe ceiling, floor, or distributional distortion effects.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Collective Orientation Scale is a standardized psychometric assessment instrument designed for straightforward individual or group administration in paper-and-pencil or computerized/online formats.

Structural Specifications

• Test Type: Standardized self-report dispositional questionnaire / attitude inventory.
• Construct Assessed: Individual-level Collective Orientation (propensity for cooperative, interdependent teamwork).
• Number of Items: 16 items total.
  • Affiliation Subscale (Zugehörigkeit): 10 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
  • Dominance Subscale (Dominanz): 6 items (Items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).
• Item Polarity and Keying:
  • Positively Keyed Items (3 items): Items 1, 4, 9.
  • Negatively Keyed / Reverse-Scored Items (13 items): Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = stimme nicht zu (strongly disagree)
  • 2 = stimme eher nicht zu (disagree somewhat)
  • 3 = weder noch (neither agree nor disagree / neutral)
  • 4 = stimme eher zu (agree somewhat)
  • 5 = stimme sehr zu (strongly agree)
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 minutes.
• Administration Modes: Supervised paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based survey platform, or automated applicant management system. Online survey administration with forced-choice validation is recommended to prevent missing data.

Scoring and Calculation Rules

• Step 1 (Recoding / Reverse-Scoring): Invert the numerical response values for all 13 negatively keyed items: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. The inversion transformation follows the standard formula: Score_recoded = 6 - Score_original (i.e., 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, 5 becomes 1).
• Step 2 (Overall Collective Orientation Score): Compute the unweighted arithmetic mean across all 16 items (using recoded values for inverted items): CO_Overall = Sum(Items 1–16) / 16. Higher composite scores represent stronger overall collective orientation.
• Step 3 (Subscale Scores):
  • Affiliation Score (Zugehörigkeit): Calculate the unweighted arithmetic mean of recoded Items 1 through 10: Affiliation = Sum(Items 1–10) / 10. (Reflects positive team valuation and willingness to rely on others).
  • Dominance Score (Dominanz): Calculate the unweighted arithmetic mean of recoded Items 11 through 16: Dominance_Reversed = Sum(Items 11–16) / 6. When interpreting after reversal, higher values signify desirable low dominance / cooperative flexibility. Alternatively, unrecoded means may be calculated to indicate raw interpersonal dogmatism/dominance.
• Handling Missing Data: In unsystematically missing responses with sample sizes N ≥ 50, missing item values may be substituted by the sample mean for that specific item. However, mandatory digital response fields are strongly advised to eliminate missing data completely.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The German adaptation and psychometric extension of the Collective Orientation Scale was developed and validated between 2011 and 2014, with formal scientific publication and archiving spearheaded by Dr. Vera Hagemann in 2017. The instrument is rooted in the original English conceptualization published by Driskell, Salas, and Hughes in 2010.

The 16-item German Collective Orientation Scale is published as an open-access scientific instrument for non-commercial academic research, organizational diagnostics, and educational applications. Researchers and practitioners may administer the inventory without royalty fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are accorded to the scale developers (Driskell et al., 2010; Hagemann, 2017). Commercial deployment, integration into proprietary commercial recruitment platforms, or corporate assessment battery licensing typically requires consultation with and explicit consent from the instrument author.

References

• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Collective orientation and team performance. Human Factors, 34(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089203400303
• Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Hughes, S. (2010). Collective orientation and team performance: Development and evaluation of a measurement model. Human Factors, 52(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810368541
• Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and team-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C
• Hagemann, V. (2017). Skala zur Erfassung der Kollektiven Orientierung (KO) [Collective Orientation Scale]. In Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.6102/zis255
• Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall.
• Piontkowski, U., Keil, W., & Buschow, Y. (2003). Computermittelte Kommunikation und Informationsasymmetrie in Gruppen [Computer-mediated communication and information asymmetry in groups]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 15(4), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1026//1617-6383.15.4.133
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
• van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. SAGE Publications.
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
• Werner, O., & Campbell, D. T. (1970). Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398–420). Natural History Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)