跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.140.84) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/15 03:08
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:洪素英
研究生(外文):Su-Ying Hung
論文名稱:團體結構與團體效能相關性探討─以大台北地區醫院品管圈為例
論文名稱(外文):The Relationship Between Group Structures and Group Effectiveness:
指導教授:謝碧晴謝碧晴引用關係
指導教授(外文):Pi-Ching Hsieh
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立台北護理學院
系所名稱:醫護管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:醫管學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2003
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:110
中文關鍵詞:團體規模團體合作規範團體任務規範團體任務凝聚力團體效能品管圈
外文關鍵詞:group sizegroup cooperation normsgroup task normsgroup task cohesiongroup effectivenessquality circle
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:7
  • 點閱點閱:297
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在探討大台北地區區域以上醫院之品管圈團體結構(團體規模、團體合作規範、團體任務規範及團體任務凝聚力)與團體效能之相關性。研究工具包括團體規模量表、團體合作規範問卷、團體任務規範問卷、團體任務凝聚力問卷及團體效能問卷。
有效樣本共收集263個品管圈團體資料,回收率達86.80 %。本研究分析單位為團體,因此每個團體內的個人層級之資料將聚合代表該團體的分數,所有團體層級變項皆採用聚合資料分析,由內部相關係數 (Intraclass correlation coefficients, ICCs) , eta squared (η2), 及單因子變異數分析 (one-way analysis of variance, ANOVA) 檢定發現個人層級資料可以用來代表團體層級之分數。以多元迴歸模式檢定四個研究假說,檢定結果團體合作規範(β=. 33, p=. 0001)、團體任務規範(β=. 21, p=. 002)、團體任務凝聚力(β=. 26, p=. 0002)與團體效能呈正相關之假說獲得支持,但團體規模與團體效能則無顯著的正相關 (β=-.07, p=. 14),團體合作規範、團體任務規範及團體任務凝聚力共解釋51%團體效能的變異量,即品管圈有較高的團體合作規範、團體任務規範及團體任務凝聚力時,會有較好的績效表現,因此建議未來可透過團體合作規範、團體任務規範及團體任務凝聚力的建立,來促進良好的團體互動,以提昇團體效能。

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the group structures (group size, cooperation norms, task norms, and task cohesion) and the group effectiveness of the quality circles of hospitals in Taipei area. The research instruments included well-validated scales used to measure group cooperation norms, group task norms, group task cohesion, and group effectiveness.
Two hundred and sixty-three quality circle groups with 1914 individuals from 16 out of 19 hospitals in Taipei area (86.8%). The unit for analysis was the quality circle group. The aggregated individual-level data in a single group were used as the representative values of the group. All the group-level parameters were analyzed based on the aggregated data. Data were aggregated on each variable to the work group level. Results of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) , Eta-squared (η2), and one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) showed that aggregated individual-level data were capable of representing the group level data.
Multiple regression analysis was adopted to test four hypotheses. That group with higher levels of cooperation norms (β = .33, p = .0001), task norms (β = .21, p = .002), task cohesion (β = .26, p = .0002) has greater feeling of group effectiveness perceived by members. In spite of the group size was not considerably associated with group effectiveness (β = -.07, p = .14), the cooperation norms, task norms, and task cohesion accounted for 51% of variance the group effectiveness.
It was concluded that the group members having better feeling of cooperation norms, task norms, and task cohesion demonstrated the better group effectiveness. To improve the performance of group, the strategies for building group norms and creating a cohesion culture should be taken by the organization.

誌 謝 I
中文摘要 III
英文摘要 V
目 錄 VII
圖表目次 IX
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 問題陳述 3
第三節 研究目的 5
第四節 研究重要性 5
第五節 研究概念架構與變項定義 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 團體效能 9
第二節 團體結構 13
第三節 團體效能與團體結構之相關性研究 18
第三章 研究方法 34
第一節 研究設計 34
第二節 研究對象 34
第三節 研究工具 35
第四節 資料收集 45
第五節 倫理考量 46
第六節 資料分析方法 47
第四章 研究結果 49
第一節 研究對象特性及分佈 49
第二節 團體層級資料之檢定及工具信效度分析 55
第三節 團體結構與團體效能之描述性統計及迴歸診斷 64
第四節 團體結構與團體效能之推論性統計分析 75
第五節 總結 81
第五章 結論、討論與建議 82
第一節 討論與結論 82
第二節 研究限制與建議 89
第三節 研究結果之應用 90
參考文獻 93
中文部份 93
英文部份 93
附錄一 問卷專家效度之專家名單 103
附錄二 品管圈團體效能評量問卷 104
附錄三 問卷使用同意書 110
圖表目次
圖目錄
頁數
圖1. 品管圈團體結構與團體效能之相關性 7
圖2. 未標準化殘差直方圖 68
圖3. 標準化殘差直方圖 68
圖4. 標準化殘差常態機率圖 68
圖5. 未標準化預測值殘差圖 68
圖6. 團體規模殘差圖 69
圖7. 團體合作規範殘差圖 69
圖8. 團體任務規範殘差圖 69
圖9. 團體任務凝聚力殘差圖 69
圖10. 規模與團體效能散佈圖 71
圖11. 合作規範與團體效能散佈圖 71
圖12. 任務規範與團體效能散佈圖 71
圖13. 任務凝聚力與團體效能散佈圖 71
表目錄
頁數
表一. 團體效能與團體結構相關研究結果彙整表. 33
表二. 問卷調查之機構特性及回收率. 50
表三. 個人基本特性. 52
表四. 團體基本特性. 54
表五. 個人層級資料加總代表團體層級資料之檢定. 58
表六. 團體效能因素之主成份分析結果. 59
表七. 團體合作規範因素之主成份分析結果. 60
表八. 團體任務規範因素之主成份分析結果. 61
表九. 團體任務凝聚力因素之主成份分析結果 62
表十. 研究變項團體層級信度分析. 63
表十一. 團體結構與團體效能之描述性統計分析表 65
表十二. 團體結構與團體效能之皮爾森積差相關分析表 74
表十三. 團體結構與團體效能之迴歸分析表 77
表十四. 團體效能模式適合性的檢定 79
表十五. 團體結構與團體效能之偏相關分析表 79
表十六. 團體結構與團體效能之相關性彙整表 81

中文部份
王復蘇 (2000) ‧企業流程再造‧台北:復御管理有限公司。
行政院衛生署 (2000,8月5日) ‧行政院衛生署89年度教學醫院評鑑第二階段合格名單‧財團法人醫院評鑑暨醫療品質策進會‧摘自http://www.tjcha.org.tw/inspect/inspect.asp
吳明隆 (2001) ‧SPSS統計應用實務‧台北: 松崗。
李來涼 (2001) ‧護理品管圈活動實施成效之影響因素‧未出版之碩士論文,義守大學管理科學研究所,高雄。
李政修 (1999) ‧台灣省政府衛生處辦理省屬醫療院所與縣市衛生局八十七年度品管圈各品管圈與總體效益評估及應用‧行政院衛生署中部辦公室。
李德芬 (1997) ‧研究設計之意義與選擇‧於李選編著,護理研究與應用(pp. 115-136) ‧台北:華杏。
杜壯、王明展 (1998) ‧團結圈活動評估因素之實證研究‧臺北科技大學學報,31(2),179-193。
卓國雄 (2000) ‧集體效能和團隊凝聚力對社會懈怠與拔河成績表現之影響‧未出版之碩士論文,國立體育學院體育研究所。
邱文達、林曉蕾 (2001) ‧醫療品質的發展‧新台北護理期刊,3(2),1-6。
林惠玲、陳正倉 (2000) ‧統計學-方法與應用(二版) ‧台北:雙葉。
胡芳儀 (2000) ‧群組規範與凝聚力對群組合作學習之影響‧未出版之碩士論文,國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所‧高雄。
徐世輝 (1999)‧全面品質管理‧台北:華泰。
徐曼瑩 (1996)‧相關研究設計法‧於徐南麗編著,護理研究導論 (pp. 151-158)‧台北:匯華。
財團法人醫院評鑑暨醫療品質策進會 (2001) ‧醫品圈‧財團法人醫院評鑑暨醫療品質策進會‧摘自http://www.tjcha.org.tw/goods/goods.asp
張紹勳 (2001)‧研究方法(修訂版)‧台中:滄海。
陳乃明 (1986)‧個人特質、工作特徵、影響力知覺、群體過程對參與品管圈活動圈工作態度之影響‧未出版之碩士論文,中原大學企業管理研究所,中壢。
陳景堂 (2002)‧統計分析:SPSS入門與應用(第三版) ‧台北:儒林。
陳順宇 (2000)‧迴歸分析‧台北:華泰。
曾振盛 (1999)‧推動品管圈活動績效之探討─以中華電信公司為例‧未出版之碩士論文,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所,高雄。
黃敏萍 (2000) ‧跨功能任務團隊之結構與效能任務特性與社會系絡之影響‧未出版之博士論文,臺灣大學商學研究所,台北。
劉選吉 (2001)‧我國甲組成棒選手自我效能和集體效能與團隊凝聚力間的關係及對運動表現的影響‧未出版之碩士論文,國立台灣體育學院/體育研究所。
鄧小雅 (1999) ‧地區教學以上醫院推行品管圈活動之主觀成效及其影響因素之探討‧未出版之碩士論文,臺灣大學醫療機構管理研究所,台北。
盧美秀 (2002) ‧護理倫理教育的省思‧新臺北護理期刊,4(1),1-8。
鍾國彪、潘憶文 (2002)‧醫品圈的推行現況‧財團法人醫院評鑑暨醫療品質策進會‧摘自http://www.tjcha.org.tw/goods/goods.asp
英文部份
Aranda, E. K., Aranda, L., & Conlon, K. (1998). Teams: Structure, process, culture, and politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alexander, J. A., Lichtenstein, R., & D’Aunno, T. (1996). The effects of treatment team diversity and size on assessments of team functioning. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 41(1), 37-53.
Allender, H. D. (1992). Using quality circles to develop an action plan required for leading organizations. Industrial Management, 34(5), 8-13.
Barrick, M. R., & Alexander, R. A. (1987). A review of quality circle efficacy and the existence of positive-findings bias. Personnel Psychology, 40, 579-592.
Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group structure, processes, and behavior. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Blair, J. D., & Whitehead, C. J. (1984). Can quality circles survive in the United States? Business Horizons, Sep-Oct, 17-23.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20-35.
Bruning, N. S., & Liverpool, P. R. (1993). Membership in quality circles and participation in decision-making. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(1), 76-95.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452.
Carless, S. A., & de Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71-88.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379-405.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 956-974.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643-676.
Dale, B. G., Elkjaer, M. B. F., Wiele, A. Ven der., & Williams, A. R. T. (2001). Fad, fashion and fit: An examination of quality circles, business process re-enginerring and statistical process control. International Journal of Production Economics, 73, 137-152.
Dale, B. G., & Hayward, S. G. (1984). Quality circle failures in UK manufacturing companies- a study. Omega, 12(5), 475-484.
Dean, J. W. (1985). The decision to participate in quality circles. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(3), 317-327.
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R. (1997). Applying teams to logistics processes: Information acquisition and the impact of team role clarity and norms. Journal of Business Logistics, 18(1), 159-178.
Dole, R. E. (1989). Strategies for learning: Small group activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish Industry. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 389-402.
Ebrahimpour, M., & Ansari, A. (1987). Measuring the effectiveness of quality control circles: A goal programming approach. International Journal of Primatology, 8(2), 59-68.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47-53.
Forbes, S., & Taunton, R. L. (1994). Reliability of aggregated organizational data: An evaluation of five empirical indices. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 2(1), 37-48.
Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team cohesion and individual productivity: the influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual effort. Small Group Research, 32(1), 3-18.
Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organization Management, 25(1), 67-97.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601-616.
Glick, W. H., & Roberts, K. H. (1984). Hypothesized interdependence, assumed independence. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 722-735.
Gruenfeld, D. H., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Sociocognition in work groups: the evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation to task performance. Small Group Research, 24(3), 383-405.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO domainance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 844-863.
Hughes, L. C., & Anderson, R. A. (1994). Issues regarding aggregation of data in nursing systems research. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 2(1), 79-101.
Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553-585.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2001). Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54, 645-667.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195-229.
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
Langfred, C. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Research, 29(1), 124-143.
Levi, D. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (1998). Nursing research: Methods, critical appraisal, and utilization (4th ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby.
Marks, M. L., Mirvis, P. H., Hackett, E. J., & Grady, J. F. (1986). Employee participation in a quality circle program: Impact on quality of work life, productivity, and absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 61-69.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Cohesion and work output. Small Group Research, 28(2), 294-301.
Rempel M. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1997). Perceived threat, cohesion, and group problem solving in intergroup conflict. The International of Conflict Management, 8(3), 216-234.
Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ross, R. S. (1989). Small groups in organizational settings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schwartz, S. (1994). The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: The potential misuse of a concept and the consequences. American Journal of Public Health, 84(5), 819-824.
Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 73-85.
Shanley, M., & Langfred, C. (1997). The importance of organizational context II: An empirical test of work group cohesiveness and effectiveness in two governmental bureaucracies. Public Administration Quarterly, 21(4), 465-485.
Shea, G. P. (1986). Quality circles: the danger of bottled change. Sloan Management Review, 27, 33-46.
Shortell, S. M., Rousseau, D. M., Gillies, R. R., Devers, K. J., & Simons, T. L. (1991). Organizational Assessment in intensive care units (ICUs): Construct development, reliability, and validity of the ICU nurse-physician questionnaire. Medical Care, 29(8), 709-723.
Smeltzer, L. R., & Kedia, B. L. (1985). Knowing the repes: Organizational requirements for quality circles. Business Horizons. July-August, 30-34.
Steel, R. P., & Lloyd, R. F. (1988). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes of participation in quality circles: Conceptual and Empirical findings. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1), 1-17.
Stewart, D. W., Siemienska, R., & Sprinthall, N. (1999). Women and men in the project of reform: A study of gender differences among local officials in two provinces in Poland. American Review of Public Administration, 29(3), 225-239.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-148.
Strasser, D. C., Smits, S. J., Falconer, J. A., Herrin, J. S., & Bowen, S. E. (2002). The influence of hospital culture on rehabilitation team functioning in VA hospitals. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 39(1), 115-125.
Tjosvold, D. (1988). Cooperative and competitive interdependence: Collaboration between departments to serve customers. Group and Organization Studies, 13(3), 274-289.
Tjosvold, D., & MacPherson, R. C. (1996). Joint hospital management by physicians and nursing administrators. Health Care Management Review, 21(3), 43-54.
Verran, J. A., Mark, B. A., & Lamb, G. (1992). Focus on psychometrics psychometric examination of instruments using aggregated data. Research in Nursing and Health, 15, 237-240.
Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, MA: F. A. Davis.
Wood, R., Hull, F., & Azumi, K. (1983). Evaluating quality circles: The American application. California Management Review, 26(1), 37-53.
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (2000). Interactive effects of absence culture salience and group cohesiveness: A multi-level and cross-level analysis of work absenteeism in the Chinese context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 31-52.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 盧美秀 (2002) ‧護理倫理教育的省思‧新臺北護理期刊,4(1),1-8。
2. 杜壯、王明展 (1998) ‧團結圈活動評估因素之實證研究‧臺北科技大學學報,31(2),179-193。
3. 鍾國彪、潘憶文 (2002)‧醫品圈的推行現況‧財團法人醫院評鑑暨醫療品質策進會‧摘自http://www.tjcha.org.tw/goods/goods.asp
4. 王明輝(1993)「從網絡關係探討農會信用部之運作:以大雅鄉農會為例」,思與言31(2):115-140。
5. 方至民、曾志弘、鍾憲瑞、沈如騏(2000)「高階經營團隊特質與財務能力對企業研發支出影響之研究-以台灣上市電子產業公司為例」,科技管理學刊5(3):29-46。
6. 李弘暉、鍾麗英(1999)「團隊運作過程對團隊績效影響之研究」,人力資源學報11:1-30。
7. 易天文(1999)「台灣農會組織體制及其衍生問題」,合作經濟60:42-50。
8. 邱湧忠(1998)「從組織分析論農會法修法」,基層金融36:131-150。
9. 胡忠一(1998)「農會組織自我革新之道」,農業推廣學報(14):89-135。
10. 陳世芳、王俊雄、蔣憲國(2001)「正會員對農會轉型為農業綜合合作社之意願研究」,農業金融論叢(46):99-119。
11. 孫炳焱(1995b)「日本農協金融的現況及其制度改革的探討」,基層金融30:43-67。
12. 孫炳焱(2000)「日本農協的經營動向與台灣農會面臨的問題」,合作經濟67:1-6。
13. 梁連文、朴紅(1997)「日本系統農協改革之探討」,基層金融35:135-168。
14. 蔡秋榮(1991)「日本農業協同組合之管理」,基層金融23:281-291。
15. 蔡秋榮(1996)「農會信用部管理問題之探討」,基層金融33:123-146。