Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 6, 2026
Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
A Systematic Review of Tools Used to Assess Team Leadership in Health Care Action Teams
Elizabeth D Rosenman1, Jonathan S Ilgen, Jamie R Shandro
1E.D. Rosenman is acting assistant professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.J.S. Ilgen is assistant professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.J.R. Shandro is associate professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.A.L. Harper is associate librarian, Health Sciences Library, University of Washington Library Services, Seattle, Washington.R. Fernandez is associate professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Purpose:
To summarize the characteristics of tools used to assess leadership in health care action (HCA) teams. HCA teams are interdisciplinary teams performing complex, critical tasks under high-pressure conditions.
Method:
The authors conducted a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases, key journals, and review articles published through March 2012 for English-language articles that applied leadership assessment tools to HCA teams in all specialties. Pairs of reviewers assessed identified articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and abstracted data on study characteristics, tool characteristics, and validity evidence.
Results:
Of the 9,913 abstracts screened, 83 studies were included. They described 61 team leadership assessment tools. Forty-nine tools (80%) provided behaviors, skills, or characteristics to define leadership. Forty-four tools (72%) assessed leadership as one component of a larger assessment, 13 tools (21%) identified leadership as the primary focus of the assessment, and 4 (7%) assessed leadership style. Fifty-three studies (64%) assessed leadership at the team level; 29 (35%) did so at the individual level. Assessments of simulated (n = 55) and live (n = 30) patient care events were performed. Validity evidence included content validity (n = 75), internal structure (n = 61), relationship to other variables (n = 44), and response process (n = 15).
Conclusions:
Leadership assessment tools applied to HCA teams are heterogeneous in content and application. Comparisons between tools are limited by study variability. A systematic approach to team leadership tool development, evaluation, and implementation will strengthen understanding of this important competency.
