Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SYNSEG – Eine Methode zur syntaxgeleiteten Segmentierung von Kodiereinheiten für die Analyse von Gruppenprozessen

SYNSEG – A method for syntax-based segmentation of coding units for the analysis of group processes

  • Hauptbeiträge
  • Published:
Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Beobachtung von Gruppenprozessen ermöglicht Aufschlüsse darüber, was erfolgreiche Gruppen anders machen als weniger erfolgreiche Gruppen. Typischerweise werden dafür Beobachtungsdaten zunächst transkribiert oder in eine Kodiersoftware überführt und anschließend Einheiten segmentiert, denen Inhaltskategorien aus Kategoriensystemen zugeordnet werden. Während es für die Transkription und Kodierung etablierte Verfahren gibt, bleibt die Segmentierung der Kodiereinheiten häufig der Intuition der Kodierenden überlassen. Dies schränkt die Reliabilität des Kodierens ein. Es fehlen standardisierte und überprüfte Vorgehensweisen für die Bildung von Kodiereinheiten, die für gruppenpsychologische Fragestellungen geeignet sind. Ziel der hier vorgestellten Methode zur systematischen Bildung von Kodiereinheiten ist es, ein transparentes, sparsames und allgemein anwendbares Vorgehen zur Erhöhung der Reliabilität von Kodierungen zu ermöglichen. Wir stellen SYNSEG vor – eine Methode zur syntaxgeleiteten Segmentierung von Kodiereinheiten anhand von zehn Regeln, die auf der deutschen Grammatik basieren. Wir diskutieren sowohl eine Realitätsprüfung als auch mögliche Anwendungen von SYNSEG in der Gruppenforschung und -beratung.

Abstract

Observing group processes allows for obtaining insights into what successful groups do differently than less successful groups. In doing so, observational data is typically transcribed or integrated into coding software, coding units are identified, and coding systems are applied to code these units with regard to the respective content. While there are systems available for transcribing and coding observational group data, the segmentation of coding units is mostly left to the coders’ intuition. Standardized and tested procedures for identifying coding units are not available for group research, limiting the reliability of coding group data. We introduce a method which aims at systematically identifying and segmenting coding units to enhance coding reliability. SYNSEG – syntax-based segmentation of coding units – suggests ten rules to segment coding units based on German grammar. To test for reliability, two coders applied SYNSEG for segmenting a 60-minute group discussion. A normalised Levensthein Distance of nD = 0,19 indicated satisfying coder agreement. We discuss the relevance and applicability of SYNSEG in applied group research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  • Abbott, A., & Tsay, A. (2000). Sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology. Sociological Methods and Research, 29, 3–33. doi:10.1177/0049124100029001001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Hrsg.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (S. 138–159). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., Quera, V., & Gnisci, A. (2009). Observer agreement for timed-event sequential data: A comparison of time-based and event-based algorithms. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 137–147. doi:10.3758/brm.41.1.137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bilandzic, H., Koschel, F., & Scheufele, B. (2001). Theoretisch-heuristische Segmentierung im Prozeß der empiriegeleiteten Kategorienbildung. In W. Wirth & E. Lauf (Hrsg.), Inhaltsanalyse (S. 98–116). Köln: Herbert von Halem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boos, M. (1996). Entscheidungsfindung in Gruppen: Eine Prozessanalyse. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boos, M., & Cornelius, C. (2001). Bedeutung und Erfassung konversationaler Kohärenz in direkter und computervermittelter Kommunikation. In F. W. Hesse & H. F. Friedrich (Hrsg.), Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (S. 55–80). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS). Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 99–112. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.2.99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brüderl, J., & Scherer, S. (2004). Methoden zur Analyse von Sequenzdaten. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft, 44, 330–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bünting, K.-D., & Bergenholtz, H. (1979). Einführung in die Syntax. Königstein: Athenäum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtscher, M. J., Kolbe, M., Wacker, J., & Manser, T. (2011). Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 257–269. doi:10.1037/a0025148.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, R. (2001). Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. London.: University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dittmar, N. (2002). Transkription. Ein Leitfaden mit Aufgaben für Studenten, Forscher und Laien. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppich, W., Mullan, P. C., Brett-Fleegler, M., & Cheng, A. (2016). “Let’s talk about it”: translating lessons from healthcare simulation to clinical event debriefings and clinical coaching conversations. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 17, 200–211. doi:10.1016/j.cpem.2016.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faßnacht, G. (1995). Systematische Verhaltensbeobachtung (2. Aufl.). München: Reinhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez Castelao, E., Boos, M., Ringer, C., Eich, C., & Russo, S. G. (2015). Effect of CRM team leader training on team performance and leadership behavior in simulated cardiac arrest scenarios: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 1–8. doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0389-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Früh, W. (2001). Kategorienexplikation bei der Inhaltsanalyse. Basiswissengeleitete offene Kategorienfindung (BoK). In W. Wirth & E. Lauf (Hrsg.), Inhaltsanalyse (S. 117–139). Köln: Herbert von Halem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Früh, W. (2004). Inhaltsanalyse. Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211–232. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G., Kolbe, M., Zala-Mezö, E., Bienefeld-Seall, N., & Künzle, B. (2010). Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics, 52, 211–228. doi:10.1080/00140130903248819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3, 428–444. doi:10.1002/job.1774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeringa, W. (2004). Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein Distance. Dissertation thesis. Groningen: University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. van (1982). Categories and sequences of behavior: Methods of description and analysis. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Hrsg.), Handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (S. 362–439). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2005). Introduction to research methods in psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S. (2007). Jammern oder Lösungsexploration? Eine sequenzanalytische Betrachtung des Interaktionsprozesses in betrieblichen Gruppen bei der Bewältigung von Optimierungsaufgaben. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51, 55–67. doi:10.1026/0932-4089.51.2.55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles in work groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keating, N. L., Landrum, M. B., Lamont, E. B., Bozeman, S. R., Shulman, L. N., & McNeil, B. J. (2013). Tumor boards and the quality of cancer care. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 105, 113–121. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Coding interactions in Motivational Interviewing with computer-software: What are the advantages for process researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 284–292. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., Burba, M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 209–222. doi:10.1037/gdn0000052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Strack, M., Stein, A., & Boos, M. (2011). Effective coordination in human group decision making: MICRO-CO. A micro-analytical taxonomy for analysing explicit coordination mechanisms in decision-making groups. In M. Boos, M. Kolbe, P. Kappeler & T. Ellwart (Hrsg.), Coordination in human and primate groups (S. 199–219). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M., & Manser, T. (2013). Co-ACT – A framework for observing coordination behavior in acute care teams. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22, 596–605. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M., & Spahn, D. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1254–1267. doi:10.1037/a0037877.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, M., Grande, B., & Spahn, D. R. (2015). Briefing and debriefing during simulation-based training and beyond: Content, structure, attitude, and setting. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 29(1) doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2015.01.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365–388. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Chiu, M. M., Lei, Z., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis. Group & Organization Management doi:10.1177/1059601116628720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, Z., Waller, M. J., Hagen, J., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41, 491–525. doi:10.1177/1059601115615246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics-Doklady, 10, 707–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangold, P. (2007). Interact. Unpublished manual. Mangold Software & Consulting.

  • Manser, T., Howard, S. K., & Gaba, D. M. (2008). Adaptive coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: A study of situational changes in coordination patterns using a new observation system. Ergonomics, 51, 1153–1178. doi:10.1080/00140130801961919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P., & Bateson, P. (1993). Measuring behavior. An introductory guide (2. Aufl.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (8. Aufl.). Weinheim: UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Altermatt, T. W. (2002). Observation and analysis of group interaction over time: Some methodological and strategic choices. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes (S. 525–556). Boston: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quera, V., Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2007). Observer agreement for event sequences: Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 39–49. doi:10.3758/bf03192842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ResearchWare. (2013). HyperRESEARCH (Version 3.5.2). Randolph.

  • Riethmüller, M., Fernandez Castelao, E., Eberhardt, D., Timmermann, A., & Boos, M. (2012). Adaptive coordination development in student anaesthesia teams: A longitudinal study. Ergonomics, 55(1), 55–68. doi:10.1080/00140139.2011.636455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schermuly, C. C., Schröder, T., Nachtwei, J., & Scholl, W. (2010). Das Instrument zur Kodierung von Diskussionen (IKD). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 54, 149–170. doi:10.1026/0932-4089/a000026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmutz, J., Hoffman, F., Heimberg, E., & Manser, T. (2015). Effective coordination in medical emergency teams: The moderating role of task type. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 24, 761–776. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2015.1018184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seelandt, J. C., Tschan, F., Keller, S., Beldi, G., Jenni, N., Kurmann, A., Candinas, D., & Semmer, N. K. (2014). Assessing distractors and teamwork during surgery: developing an event-based method for direct observation. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23, 918–929. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-002860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seelandt, J., Kolbe, M., & Grande, B. (2015). Debriefings for enhancing team learning in acute care teams. 9th International Workshop on Behavioural Sciences Applied to Surgery and Acute Care Settings, Bonn, Oktober 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selting, M., Auer, P., Barden, B., Bergmann, J., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Günthner, S., Meier, C., Quasthoff, U., Schlobinski, P., et al. (1998). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte, 173, 91–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sörensen, K. (2007). Distance measures based on the edit distance for permutation type representation. Heuristics, 13, 35–47. doi:10.1007/s10732-006-9001-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., Vetterli, M., Gurtner, A., Hunziker, S., & Marsch, S. U. (2011). Developing observational categories for group process research based on task and coordination-requirement analysis: Examples from research on medical emergency-driven teams. In M. Boos, M. Kolbe, P. Kappeler & T. Ellwart (Hrsg.), Coordination in human and primate groups (S. 93–118). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tschan, F., Seelandt, J. C., Keller, S., Semmer, N. K., Kurmann, A., Candinas, D., & Beldi, G. (2015). Impact of case-relevant and case-irrelevant communication within the surgical team on surgical-site infection. British Journal of Surgery, 102, 1718–1725. doi:10.1002/bjs.9927.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, M. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 127–137. doi:10.2307/257088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2016). Why didn’t you say something? Using after-event reviews to affect voice behavior and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology doi:10.1080/1359432X.2016.1208652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., Jehn, K. A., & Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17–43. doi:10.1177/1046496403259459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688. doi:10.1126/science.1193147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Simulationszentrum, Universitätsspital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Schweiz

    Michaela Kolbe

  2. Georg-Elias-Müller-Institut für Psychologie, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gosslerstrasse 14, 37073, Göttingen, Deutschland

    Margarete Boos &  Micha Strack

  3. Niendorfer Gartenweg 10, 39116, Magdeburg, Deutschland

    Alexandra Stein

Authors
  1. Michaela Kolbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margarete Boos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexandra Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Micha Strack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaela Kolbe.

Caption Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kolbe, M., Boos, M., Stein, A. et al. SYNSEG – Eine Methode zur syntaxgeleiteten Segmentierung von Kodiereinheiten für die Analyse von Gruppenprozessen. Gr Interakt Org 47, 335–344 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-016-0345-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-016-0345-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation