# Development and validation of a scale to assess students' perceptions of team feedback in collaborative tasks

Albane Pechard, Nicolas Michinov, Eric Jamet, Marinette Bouet, Vincent Mazenod, Zineddine Zahouani, Farouk Toumani, Estelle Michinov

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Albane Pechard, Nicolas Michinov, Eric Jamet, Marinette Bouet, Vincent Mazenod, et al. Develop- ment and validation of a scale to assess students’ perceptions of team feedback in collaborative tasks. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2025, pp.1 - 19. 10.1080/02602938.2025.2536566 . hal-05226917

HAL Id: hal-05226917

https://hal.science/hal-05226917v1

Submitted on 27 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Development and validation of a scale to assess students' perceptions of team feedback in collaborative tasks

Albane Pechard, Nicolas Michinov, Eric Jamet, Marinette Bouet, Vincent Mazenod, Zineddine Zahouani, Farouk Toumani & Estelle Michinov

**To cite this article:** Albane Pechard, Nicolas Michinov, Eric Jamet, Marinette Bouet, Vincent Mazenod, Zineddine Zahouani, Farouk Toumani & Estelle Michinov (07 Aug 2025): Development and validation of a scale to assess students' perceptions of team feedback in collaborative tasks, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2536566

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2536566

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

View supplementary material 🌐

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Published online: 07 Aug 2025.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal 🌐

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Article views: 180

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

View related articles 🌐

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

View Crossmark data 🌐

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

CrossMark
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

# Development and validation of a scale to assess students' perceptions of team feedback in collaborative tasks

Albane Pechardª ID, Nicolas Michinovª ID, Eric Jametª ID, Marinette Bouetᵇ ID, Vincent Mazenodᵇ ID, Zineddine Zahouaniᵇ, Farouk Toumaniᵇ ID and Estelle Michinovª ID

ªUniv Rennes, LP3C (Laboratoire de Psychologie: Cognition, Comportement, Communication), Rennes, France; ᵇUniversity Clermont Auvergne, Laboratory of Informatics, Modelling and Optimization of the Systems Directory (LIMOS), Clermont-Ferrand, France

## ABSTRACT

Research on individual learning has largely demonstrated that individuals need feedback to regulate their work, and improve strategies and performance. At the team level, studies suggested that feedback given to teams could affect processes and performance, but this depends on how team members perceive the feedback in terms of quality and usefulness. To our knowledge, no scale exists to assess the perception of team feedback after a teamwork session. In three studies, we developed and validated a scale to evaluate various dimensions of the perception of two types of team feedback designed to deliver information on team performance and member's participation on a digital platform. In Study 1, a focus group generated scale items. In Study 2 (N=238) and Study 3 (N=212), data were collected to verify, explore and confirm the factorial structure of the scale. The results of the factorial analyses attest to a three-dimensional structure consisting of: (1) cognitive, (2) affective and (3) behavioural processing of feedback. This research provides a useful tool for future research to examine the role of team feedback perception on team processes and performance and also to render feedback more useful and effective.

## KEYWORDS

Team feedback; higher education; groupwork; questionnaire construction

## Introduction

Group work is an educational practice that is widely used in universities. Research on collaborative learning has demonstrated that group work has positive effects on retaining information and enhancing students' academic achievements, the quality of their social interactions, and self-esteem and social support between students (Gillies 2003; Johnson and Johnson 2004). In addition, group work would develop collaborative, decision making, communication and conflict management skills which

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

are nowadays greatly appreciated on the job market and increase graduate employ-
ability (Abelha et al. 2020; Cherbonnier et al. 2024; O'Neill et al. 2024).

However, placing students in small groups does not systematically guarantee that the group work is productive and beneficial for them (Benning 2024; Tumpa et al. 2022). Many factors contribute to the team's success (e.g. group size, prior training regarding group work, and academics' support and guidance), including the team members' perception of the feedback delivered during or after teamwork (e.g. Konradt et al. 2015; Mathieu et al. 2008). Feedback plays a major role in individual or team development and performance (Gabelica et al. 2012, 2014; Hagemann and Decius 2024; Mandouit and Hattie 2023), and is generally defined 'as information provided by an agent regarding performance or understanding' (Hattie and Timperley 2007, p. 81). In the context of teamwork, feedback plays an important role in regulating activities in teams (Gabelica et al. 2012, 2014). Team-level feedback is defined as information provided to the team regarding events, processes and psychological states in relation to task completion, as well as results, to guide the team's future activities (DeShon et al. 2004; Gabelica et al. 2012; London and Sessa 2006; Nadler 1979). According to Gabelica et al. (2012), team feedback refers to the performance (i.e. feedback on the results of the task) or to the process within a team (i.e. feedback on the interaction and behaviours between group members). Feedback affects teamwork according to how it is perceived and processed by individuals (Gabelica et al. 2012, 2014; Konradt et al. 2015; London and Sessa 2006; Nadler 1979). 'Perception of feedback is defined as the extent to which team members believe that feedback is important, accurate and useful, while processing feedback concerns how the team and/or individual members process the received feedback' (Gabelica et al. 2012, p.128). When feedback is perceived as not being useful for the task or team functioning, members can ignore or reject it, and consequently not process it. If individuals do not assign meaning to the feedback provided, they will not use it to modify their behaviours or strategies within the team (Gabelica et al. 2012).

To the best of our knowledge, no validated scale exists to evaluate how performance or process feedback is perceived at the team level. This study therefore aimed to develop and validate a scale to assess perception of team feedback.

Scales for measuring feedback perception

The influence of feedback and its effectiveness depends on several factors, such as its level of analysis (individual or team), its content (performance or process), its characteristics (written, verbal or visual), its source (teachers, instructors, peers, systems, etc.) and the context in which it is provided (DeShon et al. 2004; Gabelica et al. 2012, 2014; Hagemann and Decius 2024; Hattie and Timperley 2007; London and Sessa 2006). Recent meta-analyses showed that there are many studies and models of how individuals process individual feedback (Handke et al. 2022; Williams 2024). A recent literature review (Brown and Zhao 2023) revealed that many questionnaires have been designed to evaluate perceptions of feedback at an individual level: Student Conceptions of Feedback (Brown, Peterson, and Yao 2016); the SCoF inventory (Irving, Peterson, and Brown 2006); Feedback Delivery & Student Use of Feedback (Kyaruzi et al. 2019); Feedback perceived Usefulness &
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Frequency (Zhu and Mok 2018); Students Perceptions on Teachers' Levels of Feedback Questionnaire (Rui and Muthikrishnan 2019); Student Feedback Orientation Scale (King, Schrodt, and Weisel 2009) and Feedback in Learning Scale (Jellicoe and Forsythe 2019). For most of these questionnaires, the source of feedback was identified as the teacher (professor or supervisor), peers or learner's parents but the feedback could also be provided through digital tools (Petkova, Domingo, and Lamm 2021).

At the team level, feedback that exists includes visualisation tools such as graphs depicting team-level aggregates to survey responses (e.g. motivation, Geister, Konradt, and Hertel 2006, or team mental models, Konradt et al. 2015) or displays of team actions or goal attainment (e.g. Glikson et al. 2019; Ostrander et al. 2020). To evaluate the effects of team feedback, self-report questionnaires are also used such as team learning (Edmondson 1999) or group reflexivity measures (Schippers et al. 2003). A short scale composed of a small number of items is also used to evaluate team performance feedback (Van Der Vegt et al. 2010). To our knowledge, no scale of team feedback perception exists which examines how team feedback is processed.

## Cognitive, affective and behavioural processing of feedback

The perception of feedback is often based on a recently developed three-dimensional feedback processing model (Lipnevich and Smith 2022). The three dimensions are conceptualised as cognitive understanding, affective reaction and behaviours produced after receiving feedback. With regard to the cognitive dimension, learners need to understand information in order to apply it to new situations. The affective component refers to the emotional reaction to the message delivered by the feedback. This emotional reaction influences the way feedback is perceived and processed. It also guides the resulting behaviour (Goetz et al. 2006). For example, success is positively correlated with pleasure and pride, and negatively with anger, anxiety, shame and despair (Goetz et al. 2006). Cognitive and affective components often interact with each other. The receiver must first understand the feedback message in order to react emotionally, and this emotion will affect cognitive processing, making it easier, or on the contrary, creating an obstacle to comprehension (Brookhart 2011). The third component refers to the behavioural processing of feedback, which encompasses the actions performed by a student after receiving feedback. Factors such as clarity, perceived usefulness and comprehension will influence the behavioural response.

## Study aim and hypothesis

A review of the literature revealed a lack of tools to assess team feedback perception; therefore, the aim of this study was to construct a scale to evaluate this for both performance and process dimensions during teamwork. Based on recent work and scales on individual feedback processing (e.g. Lipnevich and Smith 2022), we expected that the team feedback perception scale (TFPS) would be structured around the three dimensions of feedback processing: cognitive, affective and behavioural.
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

# Study 1: generation of items and questionnaire development

The development of the questionnaire was based on a review of the literature and a focus group with teachers and students. According to the literature, existing scales mainly concern the perception of individual feedback. Feedback perception refers to how individuals interpret and react to feedback and is generally based on a three-dimensional (3D) model (Lipnevich and Smith 2022). These three dimensions refer to its cognitive (i.e. understanding of the feedback including its clarity, relevance and perceived utility), affective (i.e. emotional responses to feedback received that may motivate or demotivate future actions) and behavioural (individual's actions or changes in responses to the feedback) processing. An initial pool of 62 items was thus created. This first list of items was evaluated by three teachers and five students (doctoral and master's students). Each was asked to independently rank the items according to the three aforementioned dimensions. They were also asked to assess the quality of each item (item to keep, modify or delete). Following this assessment, the same experts assessed the relevance and clarity of the items. Items with perfect or very good team consensus (7 or 8 out of 8 agreements) were discussed and reformulated collectively.

As a result of this first phase, 27 items were selected for the scale. The cognitive dimension included nine items regarding ease of understanding and perceived usefulness of the feedback. The affective dimension included 12 items with positive and negative valence (i.e. positive and negative emotions, respectively). The behavioural dimension referred to the students' actions or changes in response to the feedback and related to future intentions (six items). All these items were identical for feedback on perception of performance and on participation (see Online supplementary material 1).

# Study 2: exploratory factorial analyses

## Participants

The participants were 238 undergraduate students divided into 59 three- or four-member groups currently enrolled in psychology and ethology departments of universities in France, consisting of 195 women (81.9%), 38 men (16%) and five others (2.1%). They were between 18 and 52 years old ($M_{age} = 21.4, SD_{age} = 5.10$). They collaborated on a digital collaborative environment delivering feedback at the end of the session. Due to technical issues, data for 10 groups were lost. Therefore, statistical analyses were conducted on date from 195 students (49 groups of 3 or 4 students) including 157 females (80.5%), 33 males (16.9%) and five others (2.6%). All the participants gave their free and informed consent prior to starting the study. This study has received the Ethics approval of the University (# 2025-020).

## Materials and procedure

The present study utilised the digital collaborative environment ECC'IPE (*Training Collaborative Skills: Interventions using a digital Platform*), designed to enhance teamwork and collaboration skills. This platform provides structured guidance and
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

collaborative instructions to support participants in working effectively as a team. A predefined problem-solving task requiring teamwork within a simulated disaster scenario was used in this study ('Lost on the Moon', Hall and Watson 1970). In this simulation, participants first individually, then collectively (in groups of three or four) have to rank 15 objects based on their utility for survival in a hostile environment.

Participants completed the digital task as part of a social psychology course. Each participant used a personal computer to perform the task. Initially, participants viewed a short-animated video introducing the survival task, accompanied by written instructions and contextual details about the scenario. They then completed the task individually for 10 min, ranking the items from most to least important for survival. Following this individual phase, participants engaged in a collective problem-solving session for 30 min, during which they collaboratively ranked the items as a group. Communication during the group task was exclusively text-based, facilitated through a chat system integrated into the digital environment.

Upon completing the task in groups, participants received two types of feedback. First, they were presented with team performance feedback which displayed individual and group rankings on a scale (see Online supplementary material 2). This scale ranged from the minimum score on the left to the maximum score on the right. Individual scores were deliberately anonymised to prevent social comparisons among participants and to strengthen team identification (Le Hénaff et al., 2015).

Participants were then provided with feedback on their level of participation during the collaboration, displayed as a pie chart illustrating the contribution of each team member (see Online supplementary material 3). This proportion was based on the number of messages each participant sent in the chat during the group task.

The session ended with a debriefing on the group dynamics. At the same time, the correct rankings of the 'Lost on the Moon' survival exercise was also given by the teacher. Individual and group rankings for the task could be compared with the 'NASA experts' rankings reported in Hall and Watson (1970). All the data collected via the platform was anonymised.

## Measures

**Team Feedback Perception Scale.** The two subscales of team feedback perception (performance and participation) were included in a questionnaire after the collaborative task. The 27 items on each team feedback subscale were randomised (see items in Online supplementary material 1). Before answering the first question, participants were presented with an explanatory statement and a visual representation reminding them of the feedback they had received, to distinguish between performance and participation feedback. Response options ranged from 1 ('Strongly disagree') to 5 ('Strongly agree').

## Data analysis

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted using Jamovi 2.4 (The jamovi project 2023). Reliability analyses, including Cronbach's α, and McDonald's ω along with their corresponding confidence intervals, were performed using JASP 0.18.1 (2024).
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

## Results

Before conducting the Exploratory Factor analyses (EFAs), descriptive statistics were performed on all items. Skewness and kurtosis coefficients were calculated for each item, with absolute values required to be below 1 for both coefficients to be included in the analysis. Seven items were removed from the perception subscale for performance feedback, and the same items were excluded from the perception subscale for participation feedback for the same reasons.

The EFAs were conducted using the principal axis factoring as the extraction method and Oblimin rotation as the rotation method to account for potential correlations between factors (Field 2013). The number of factors to retain in the EFAs was determined using the Kaiser criterion, which is based on the eigenvalues of the factors. According to this criterion, only factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 were retained. Items were excluded from the analysis if (1) they had no factor loadings greater than |0.4| or (2) they loaded above |0.4| on more than one factor.

## Perception of performance feedback

For the perception of team performance feedback, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index value of 0.91 indicated excellent sampling adequacy (Field 2013) and the Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant ($\chi^2(120) = 1682, p < 0.001$). These values indicate that the data were suitable for factor analysis. A two-factor solution based on 15 items was finally obtained (Table 1), explaining 55.93% of the total variance.

<table><caption>Table 1. EFA of the items for the performance team feedback subscale.</caption><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>CBP</th><th>AP</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I will definitely improve my work on a future task thanks to this feedback.</td><td>0.75</td><td></td><td>2.89</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback motivates me to try harder next time.</td><td>0.73</td><td></td><td>3.10</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback shows me how to do better next time.</td><td>0.72</td><td></td><td>2.72</td><td>1.12</td></tr><tr><td>I will change my behavior thanks to this feedback.</td><td>0.70</td><td></td><td>2.31</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback gives me useful hints on how to progress in teamwork.</td><td>0.67</td><td></td><td>3.07</td><td>1.11</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback should help me to get better results.</td><td>0.65</td><td></td><td>2.70</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback tells me what I need to do to improve.</td><td>0.64</td><td></td><td>2.71</td><td>1.07</td></tr><tr><td>I will use this feedback when I need to work in a team again.</td><td>0.62</td><td></td><td>2.83</td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td>I intend to put this feedback into practice</td><td>0.59</td><td></td><td>3.14</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Thanks to this feedback, I'll pay attention to the way I behave in a group.</td><td>0.57</td><td></td><td>3.06</td><td>1.06</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback helps me understand better how our team performed.</td><td></td><td></td><td>3.79</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback includes a lot of information.</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.35</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>I was surprised to receive this feedback.</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.41</td><td>1.06</td></tr><tr><td>I felt satisfied on receiving this feedback.</td><td></td><td>0.87</td><td>3.34</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback made me feel proud.</td><td></td><td>0.86</td><td>2.97</td><td>1.09</td></tr><tr><td>Receiving this feedback made me feel happy.</td><td></td><td>0.80</td><td>3.27</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>I felt pleased on receiving this feedback.</td><td></td><td>0.75</td><td>3.39</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>I appreciated receiving this feedback.</td><td></td><td>0.64</td><td>3.93</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback gave me self-confidence.</td><td></td><td>0.62</td><td>3.00</td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td>I was disappointed with this feedback.</td><td></td><td></td><td>4.26</td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td>Eigenvalue</td><td>6.72</td><td>1.97</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. CBP = Cognitive behavior processing; AP = affective processing. Factor loadings smaller than 0.40 were removed. Items marked with an asterisk (*) were reverse-coded.
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Four items were excluded from the analysis due to factor loadings below 0.40. An additional item (‘This feedback helps me to get better results’) was removed due to redundancy with other items in the first factor.

The first factor corresponds to the ‘cognitive-behavioural processing of feedback’ (CBP) and is composed of nine items related to the perceived usefulness of feedback and behavioural intention. The reliability indices are satisfactory, exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.70 (Kline 1999), with a Cronbach’s α of 0.88 and McDonald’s ω of 0.88 (90% CI [0.86, 0.90]).

The second factor corresponds to the ‘affective processing of feedback’ (AP) and is composed of six items referring to emotion felt when receiving feedback. Reliability indices are also satisfactory with a Cronbach’s α of 0.91 and McDonald’s ω of 0.90 (90% CI [0.88, 0.92]).

Determining the number of factors based on these initial exploratory factorial analyses with Kaiser criterion (i.e. eigenvalues of factors > 1) was also examined using an additional analysis based on interpreting visual graphs (Field 2013). Thus, the scree plot suggested retaining three factors (Figure 1). Forcing the retention of three factors separated the first factor into two factors, with one factor referring to the ‘cognitive processing of feedback’, composed of three items and one factor referring to the ‘behavioural processing of feedback’, also composed of four items. The third factor referring to the ‘affective processing of feedback’ was composed of six items.

Concerning the perception of performance feedback, the Kaiser criterion encouraged the retention of two factors, while the Cattell criterion encouraged the consideration of three factors.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Scree plot of the EFA for the performance team feedback subscale.</figcaption></figure>

## Perception of participation feedback

For the perception of participation feedback, the KMO index value of 0.92 indicated excellent sampling adequacy (Field 2013) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant ($\chi^2(190) = 2765, p<0.001$) confirming that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. A two-factor solution comprising 15 items was ultimately obtained (Table 2), accounting for 59.26% of the total variance. Four items were excluded due to factor loadings below 0.40, and one additional item (‘This feedback helps me to get better results’) was removed due to redundancy within the first factor.
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Table 2.** EFA of the items for the participation team feedback subscale.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>CBP</th><th>AP</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I will definitely improve my work on a future task thanks to this feedback.</td><td>0.88</td><td></td><td>2.95</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback shows me how to do better next time.</td><td>0.81</td><td></td><td>2.91</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback gives me useful hints on how to progress in teamwork.</td><td>0.79</td><td></td><td>3.08</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback tells me what I need to do to improve.</td><td>0.77</td><td></td><td>2.92</td><td>1.12</td></tr><tr><td>I intend to put this feedback into practice.</td><td>0.76</td><td></td><td>3.08</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>I will use this feedback when I need to work in a team again.</td><td>0.75</td><td></td><td>3.02</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback motivates me to try harder next time.</td><td>0.71</td><td></td><td>3.03</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback should help me to get better results.</td><td>0.70</td><td></td><td>2.78</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>I will change my behavior thanks to this feedback.</td><td>0.70</td><td></td><td>2.46</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>Thanks to this feedback, I'll pay more attention to the way I behave in a group.</td><td>0.68</td><td></td><td>3.22</td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback includes a lot of information.</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.25</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>I was surprised to receive this feedback.</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.38</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>I felt satisfied on receiving this feedback.</td><td></td><td>0.87</td><td>3.25</td><td>1.08</td></tr><tr><td>Receiving this feedback pleased me.</td><td></td><td>0.83</td><td>3.39</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback made me feel proud.</td><td></td><td>0.80</td><td>2.88</td><td>1.11</td></tr><tr><td>I felt happy on receiving this feedback.</td><td></td><td>0.72</td><td>3.07</td><td>1.13</td></tr><tr><td>I appreciated receiving this feedback.</td><td></td><td>0.68</td><td>3.80</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback gave me self-confidence.</td><td></td><td>0.67</td><td>2.97</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>This feedback disappointed me.</td><td></td><td></td><td>4.30</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>I felt angry when I received this feedback.</td><td></td><td></td><td>4.59</td><td>0.68</td></tr><tr><td>Eigenvalue</td><td>7.38</td><td>2.09</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. CBP = Cognitive behavior processing; AP = affective processing. Factor loadings smaller than 0.40 were removed. Items marked with an asterisk (*) were reverse-coded.

The first factor reflecting cognitive-behavioural processing (CBP) of feedback consisted of nine items related to usefulness and behavioural intention of the perceived feedback. The second factor representing affective processing of feedback (AP) comprised six items associated with emotion experienced when receiving feedback.

Reliability indices were robust for the first factor (Cronbach's α = 0.92; McDonald's ω = 0.93, 90% CI [0.91, 0.94]) and similarly strong for the second factor (Cronbach's α = 0.90; McDonald's ω = 0.90, 90% CI [0.88, 0.93]).

Complementary visual analysis with the scree plot confirmed two factors (Figure 2). Forcing three factors resulted in the first factor being divided into two: one representing cognitive processing, comprised of three items, and the other representing behavioural processing of feedback, consisting of six items.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Scree plot of the EFA for the participation team feedback subscale.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

## Discussion

The descriptive statistics, EFA, and reliability tests demonstrated similar psychometric properties for the two subscales of team feedback. First, initial EFA revealed the same number of items (15 items) for the two subscales. Stability in the items of the scale according to the type of feedback measured was thus observed.

However, regarding the factorial structure obtained, results were ambiguous, as the number of dimensions to be retained depended on the criterion selected. Indeed, the optimal factor structure was ambiguous in relation to whether two or three factors should be retained. Specifically, for the team performance feedback, the eigenvalue suggests a two-factor structure, while the scree plot criterion indicated a three-factor structure. This initial exploratory analysis thus is ambiguous in relation to the number of factors. Depending on the criterion used, the dimension relating to cognitive and attitudinal processing may be the subject of a single dimension or two sub-dimensions (cognitive and behavioural intention). To resolve this discrepancy, we therefore conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with a new sample.

# Study 3: confirmatory factorial analyses

## Participants

The participants were 212 nursing students divided into 55 three- to five-member groups enrolled in two nursing schools in France, including 177 women (83.5%), 29 men (13.7%) and six others (2.9%). They were between 18 and 48 years old ($M_{age} = 22.2, SD_{age} = 6.57$). Because of technical issues encountered on the digital collaborative environment that affected the delivery of performance feedback, 19 responses for the feedback performance scale were lost. Thus, the performance feedback perception subscale consisted of 197 students divided into 54 three- to five-member groups, including 164 females (83.2%), 27 males (13.7%) and six others (3%). All the participants gave their free and informed consent prior to starting the study. This study has received the Ethics approval of the University (# 2025-020).

## Procedure and material

The procedure and material were the same as those used in Study 2.

## Measures

**Team Feedback Perception Scale.** The subscales were the same as in Study 1. The only difference was that the subscale was refined according to the AFE results and thus contained 15 items.

**Group Performance.** Using survival tasks, different indices of group performance can be calculated (Hémon et al. 2024; Meslec et al. 2014). A synergy strength score was computed as the difference between the group performance score and the score of the best performing member in the group (Larson 2007). A higher score indicated stronger group synergy.
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

**Communication Behaviour.** The number of messages sent by group members on the chat during the collaborative task was counted.

## Data analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analyses were conducted using Jamovi software version 2.4 (2023). Fit indices were chosen to identify the model with the best fit, with threshold values for each as follows (Hu and Bentler 1999): Comparative Fit Index (CFI, with values >0.90 indicating good fit), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, with values >0.95 indicating good fit), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, with values <0.08 indicating good fit), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, with values <0.08 indicating good fit).

## Results

Descriptive statistics were computed for all items prior to conducting the CFA. Skewness and kurtosis were again calculated for each item, with absolute values below 1 required for inclusion in the analysis. As no item exhibited an absolute value exceeding one for either coefficient, all the items were included in the analysis for both the feedback perception subscales.

### Perception of performance feedback

The CFA conducted on the team performance feedback indicated that the three-factor model provided the best fit for the data with CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.94; SRMR = 0.06; RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI [0.05, 0.08]) compared to a two-factor model or a one-factor model, as shown in Table 3.

<table><caption>Table 3. Fit indices of models by CFA for the performance team feedback subscale.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Model</th><th rowspan="2">CFI</th><th rowspan="2">TLI</th><th rowspan="2">SRMR</th><th rowspan="2">RMSEA</th><th colspan="2">RMSEA 90% CI</th></tr><tr><th>LB</th><th>UB</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>M1</td><td>.66</td><td>.61</td><td>.13</td><td>.16</td><td>.14</td><td>.17</td></tr><tr><td>M2</td><td>.91</td><td>.90</td><td>.06</td><td>.08</td><td>.07</td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td>M3</td><td>.95</td><td>.94</td><td>.06</td><td>.06</td><td>.05</td><td>.08</td></tr><tr><td>Limit</td><td>&gt; 0.90</td><td>&gt; .95</td><td>&lt; .08</td><td>&lt; .08</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. LB = lower bound; UB = upper bound. M1 = one-factor model, M2 = two-factor model, M3 = three-factor model.

### Perception of participation feedback

The CFA performed on the participation feedback demonstrated that the three-factor model offered the best fit for the data (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.09 (90% CI [0.07, 0.10))), outperforming both the two-factor and one-factor models, as detailed in Table 4.

Based on the results obtained for the two team feedback subscales, 3D model emerged as the best fit for the data. Two identical scales were developed, each consisting of 15 items distributed across three distinct factors (see Figure 3): affective
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Table 4.** Fit indices of models by CFA for the participation team feedback subscale.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Model</th><th rowspan="2">CFI</th><th rowspan="2">TLI</th><th rowspan="2">SRMR</th><th rowspan="2">RMSEA</th><th colspan="2">RMSEA 90% CI</th></tr><tr><th>LB</th><th>UB</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>M1</td><td>.69</td><td>.64</td><td>.11</td><td>.18</td><td>.17</td><td>.19</td></tr><tr><td>M2</td><td>.91</td><td>.89</td><td>.06</td><td>.10</td><td>.09</td><td>.11</td></tr><tr><td>M3</td><td>.93</td><td>.92</td><td>.05</td><td>.09</td><td>.07</td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td>Limit</td><td>&gt; 0.90</td><td>&gt; .95</td><td>&lt; .08</td><td>&lt; .08</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. LB = lower bound; UB = upper bound. M1 = one-factor model, M2 = two-factor model, M3 = three-factor model.

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** The three-factor structure model of the team feedback perception scale (TFPS). Note. AP = affective processing; BP = behavioral processing; CP = cognitive processing.</figcaption></figure>

processing (Factor 1: six items), behavioural processing (Factor 2: six items) and cognitive [processing (Factor 3: three items).

## Descriptive statistics and correlations between dimensions

Descriptive statistics and correlations between the three dimensions of team feedback perception are provided in Table 5.

The results show that the highest ratings were given to cognitive processing for both performance and participation feedback (Ms = 3.22). This was followed by
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>**Table 5.** Means, standard deviations, internal consistency and correlations of the perceived team feedback dimensions.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th><em>M</em></th><th><em>SD</em></th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Participation feedback</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Affective process</td><td>3.10</td><td>0.77</td><td>(0.92)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Cognitive process</td><td>3.22</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.40***</td><td>(0.79)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Behavior process</td><td>3.22</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.58***</td><td>0.67***</td><td>(0.88)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Performance feedback</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Affective process</td><td>3.20</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.70***</td><td>0.35***</td><td>0.43***</td><td>(0.89)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Cognitive process</td><td>3.22</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.32***</td><td>0.67***</td><td>0.48***</td><td>0.34***</td><td>(0.76)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Behavior process</td><td>3.20</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.50***</td><td>0.55***</td><td>0.79***</td><td>0.43***</td><td>0.58***</td><td>(0.80)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Internal consistencies (alphas) are presented in parentheses. Team participation feedback involved a sample of 210 students. Team performance feedback involved a sample of 196 students. *** *p* < 0.001.

behavioural processing for participation and performance feedback (respectively *M* = 3.22 and 3.20). A significant difference only appeared on affective processing, *t* (195) = 2.32, *p* = 0.022 showing a higher score for affective perception of performance feedback (*M* = 3.20) than for participation feedback (*M* = 3.10).

We also examined the level of agreement between group members concerning the perception of feedback. For this, the rwg coefficient (within-group agreement) was calculated for each affective, cognitive and behaviour dimension (Cohen, Doveh, and Eick 2001; James, Demaree, and Wolf 1993). This coefficient is calculated by comparing the observed variance on a set of items in a group with the variance that would be expected if the group members responded randomly. A value of 0.70 or above is considered to represent satisfactory agreement. For team performance feedback, rwg scores for affective, cognitive and behaviour components were respectively 0.75, 0.67 and 0.84. For participation feedback, rwg scores for affective, cognitive and behaviour components were respectively 0.74, 0.70 and 0.77. The results showed group members perceived the feedback received similarly.

The correlation matrix suggests that all the components of team feedback had a significant positive correlation with each other (Table 5). The highest correlations were between the same dimensions of affective (*r* = 0.70), cognitive (*r* = 0.67) and behaviour (*r* = 0.79) processes. The lowest correlations were between affective and cognitive processes (*r* = 0.34 for performance FB, and *r* = 0.40 for participation FB).

Finally, the sensitivity of the team feedback subscales was assessed using the correlations between the team performance feedback and the group performance measure, and between the participation feedback and the number of messages send in the chat (Table 6). The results revealed that the group performance (synergy score) was positively correlated with the affective component of performance feedback (*r* = 0.35, *p* = 0.009), indicating that the more participants succeeded in the task the more they were affectively satisfied with their performance. The number of messages sent in the chat by each member was negatively correlated with the perception of usefulness of the participation feedback (*r* = -0.28, *p* = 0.038), indicating that the more messages group members sent in the chat, the less useful they perceived the participation feedback to be.
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>**Table 6.** Means, standard deviations and correlations of the performance team feedback with group synergy and of the participation team feedback with the number of messages.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Performance team feedback</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Affective process</td><td>3.21</td><td>0.41</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Cognitive process</td><td>3.23</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.24</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Behavior process</td><td>3.21</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.36**</td><td>0.55**</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Synergy score</td><td>-1.41</td><td>10.05</td><td>0.35**</td><td>-0.11</td><td>-0.19</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Participation team feedback</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>5. Affective process</td><td>3.09</td><td>0.44</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Cognitive process</td><td>3.22</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.27*</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. Behavior process</td><td>3.21</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.58***</td><td>0.68***</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Number of messages</td><td>68.87</td><td>30.14</td><td>0.14</td><td>-0.28*</td><td>-0.20</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. SD= standard deviation. Team performance feedback involved 53 teams. Team participation feedback involved 54 teams. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

## General discussion

Learners' perception of team feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing groupwork performance (Gabelica et al. 2012, 2014; Hagemann and Decius 2024; Mandouit and Hattie 2023). While validated feedback perception scales exist at the individual level (e.g. Brown and Zhao 2023), to our knowledge, no such scale has been developed to assess team-level perceptions. To address this gap, we developed and validated TFPS that we expected to be structured around the three dimensions of feedback processing based on Lipnevich and Smith's (2022) model.

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) conducted on the team performance feedback and participation feedback revealed three distinct dimensions: affective, cognitive and behavioural processing. These dimensions are interdependent: Well-understood feedback (cognitive processing) can influence emotional responses (affective processing), which, in turn, impact behavioural reactions (behavioural processing) (Pekrun 2006). The behavioural responses students adopt are thus shaped by both their cognitive and affective processing of feedback (Lipnevich and Smith 2022). The confirmatory analyses also helped clarify an ambiguity observed in Study 2 regarding the possible overlap between cognitive and behavioural dimensions.

Regarding the scale's psychometric properties, the results of Study 3 demonstrated its robustness, supporting its relevance for assessing team feedback perception in future research. The three dimensions exhibited strong psychometric indicators, with satisfactory levels of internal reliability and consistency. Furthermore, the dimensions were significantly correlated, with strong associations observed between the same dimensions across the two subscales and relatively weaker correlations between dimensions within the same subscale. These findings further confirm the construct validity of the scale.

This scale also aimed to assess students' perceptions of team feedback following groupwork. To evaluate the extent of shared perceptions within teams, we calculated the within-group agreement (rwg coefficient) for each dimension. The results confirmed group members' perceptions of the feedback they received were similar.
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

Finally, the team feedback perception subscales demonstrate a good sensitivity. First, objective group performance (i.e. the synergy score) was correlated with the affective component of team performance feedback. The affective impact can attest to the fact that students have perceived and understood the team feedback. The affective impact of team feedback would emerge more readily after single team feedback than the impact on behavioural intentions. This would explain the stronger correlations with the affective dimension. As regards the perception of participation feedback, the results appear to show that the perceived usefulness of feedback depends on participants' behaviour during the task. Thus, the more members communicated during the task (i.e. sending messages in the chat), the less useful they perceived the feedback on participation, emphasising the importance of each member's participation in the group work.

Taken together, different reliability and validity tests provide strong evidence for the good psychometric indices of the team feedback perception scale. The final version of the scale assessing performance and process feedback includes 15 items, making it convenient for both research and applications.

This study is not without its limitations. First, future studies should examine the validity of the scales in other contexts and populations. Second, predictive validity of the scale should be tested with in-group process measures such as reflexivity or team learning indicators. Future studies should also explore the relationships of team feedback perception with group performance in subsequent transfer tasks.

## Conclusion and implications

While feedback perception scales have been developed at an individual level, to date no equivalent scale existed at the team level. The scale developed in the present studies expands this framework by proposing a new instrument evaluating the affective, cognitive and behavioural components based on Lipnevich and Smith's feedback model (Lipnevich and Smith 2022). The results support the construct validity of the TFPS on two samples, and specifically demonstrate its predictive validity for team performance and group behaviours.

From a practical perspective, the TFPS can be used by teachers because it provides a way of measuring how feedback is perceived by students at different levels, namely cognitive, affective and behavioural. The short scale provided here can also be used by teachers and students to raise their awareness to the feedback delivered, and regulate reflexivity to improve team performance.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Justine Bulteau, Anthony Cherbonnier, Sacha Drouet and Swann Favreau for their assistance with the data collection. They also thank Lise Demourgues, Axel Mascaro and Stephane Guillet for designing the software used in this study and their assistance for curation of data.

## Author contributions

Albane Pechard contributed to conceptualisation, methodology, data curation, data analyses and writing – original draft. Estelle Michinov contributed to conceptualisation, methodology,
data analyses, writing – original draft and supervision. Nicolas Michinov contributed to conceptualisation, methodology, writing – reviewing and editing, supervision and funding acquisition. Eric Jamet contributed to conceptualisation, reviewing and editing. Marinette Bouet, Vincent Mazenot, Zineddine Zahouani and Farouk Toumani contributed to the development of the software, reviewing and editing.

**Information consent of participants and ethics approvals**

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were fully informed about the study and their rights. Participant confidentiality, anonymity and data protection were ensured. The activity presented in this study was in the program of the students' course, students were not randomly assigned to experimental conditions and no personal data was collected. This study has received the Ethics approval of the University (# 2025-020).

**Disclosure statement**

The authors certify that there was no financial or personal interest that could have influenced their objectivity in this study.

**Funding**

This research is part of the ECC'IPE project supported financially by the national investment plan 'France 2030' Digital innovation for educational excellence, and the "Mission Monteil pour le numérique éducatif".

**Notes on contributors**

*Albane Pechard* is a PhD student in social psychology at the University of Rennes 2 (France). Her research focuses on feedback in teamwork training and the use of digital environments to foster collaborative skills.

*Nicolas Michinov* is a Professor of social psychology at the University of Rennes 2 (France). He studies socio-cognitive processes involved in face-to-face and online environments such as web-based training and digital learning environments, electronic brainstorming systems. His interests include influence of these processes on various outcomes (performance, learning, training, creativity, emotions, ...).

*Eric Jamet* is a Professor of cognitive psychology and ergonomics at the University of Rennes 2 (France). His research focuses on various issues related to the cognitive processing of complex documents and human-computer interaction (e.g., e-learning and multimedia comprehension, active learning and scaffolding effects).

*Marinette Bouet* is an Assistant Professor in computer science at the University of Clermont Auvergne (France). She is also in charge of the development of the ECC'IPE digital platform.

*Vincent Mazenot* is a research engineer in computer science; he is in charge of the IT department at ISIMA/LIMOS at the University of Clermont Auvergne (France). He has supervised several interdisciplinary research projects in health and educational sciences.

*Zineddine Zahouani* is a PhD student in computer Science at the University of Clermont Auvergne (France). His research focuses on leveraging artificial intelligence techniques to enhance collaborative group dynamics and team efficiency.
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

*Farouk Toumani* is a Professor in computer science at the University of Clermont Auvergne (France); he is director of the ISIMA. He supervises the computer science research work aimed at developing the ECC’IPE digital platform.

*Estelle Michinov* is a Professor of social psychology at the University of Rennes 2 (France). Her research interests group processes and team performance in different contexts. She examines factors that contribute to team performance and team training methods (simulation-based, technology based and virtual reality).

## ORCID

Albane Pechard http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0181-8786

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

Nicolas Michinov http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6065-8061

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

Eric Jamet http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8665-4547

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

Marinette Bouet http://orcid.org/0009-0007-5991-747X

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Vincent Mazenod http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8569-929X

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

Farouk Toumani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5086-3301

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

Estelle Michinov http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5872-2450

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

## Availability of data

Data are available on our OSF project page: https://osf.io/4eyjm/?view_only=d8fd26074b5e4603a3ca4fbab9a37dc6

## References

* Abelha, M., S. Fernandes, D. Mesquita, F. Seabra, and A. T. Ferreira-Oliveira. 2020. "Graduate Employability and Competence Development in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review Using PRISMA." *Sustainability* 12 (15): 5900. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155900

* Benning, T. M. 2024. "Reducing Free-Riding in Group Projects in Line with Students' Preferences: Does it Matter if There is More at Stake?" *Active Learning in Higher Education* 25 (2): 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221118864

* Brookhart, S. M. 2011. "Educational Assessment Knowledge and Skills for Teachers." *Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice* 30 (1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x

* Brown, G. T. L., E. R. Peterson, and E. S. Yao. 2016. "Student Conceptions of Feedback: Impact on Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Academic Achievement." *The British Journal of Educational Psychology* 86 (4): 606–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12126

* Brown, G. T. L., and A. Zhao. 2023. "In Defence of Psychometric Measurement: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Self-Report Feedback Inventories." *Educational Psychologist* 58 (3): 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2208670

* Cherbonnier, A., B. Hémon, N. Michinov, E. Jamet, and E. Michinov. 2024. "Collaborative Skills Training Using Digital Tools: A Systematic Literature Review." *International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction*, 41 (7): 4155–4173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2348227

* Cohen, A., E. Doveh, and U. Eick. 2001. "Statistical Properties of the rWG(J) index of Agreement." *Psychological Methods* 6 (3): 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.3.297

* DeShon, R. P., S. W. J. Kozlowski, A. M. Schmidt, K. R. Milner, and D. Wiechmann. 2004. "A Multiple-Goal, Multilevel Model of Feedback Effects on the Regulation of Individual and Team Performance." *The Journal of Applied Psychology* 89 (6): 1035–1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1035

* Edmondson, A. 1999. "Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams." *Administrative Science Quarterly* 44 (2): 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Field, A. 2013. *Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics* 4e Ed. London, England: SAGE.

Gabelica, C., P. V. D. Bossche, M. Segers, and W. Gijselaers. 2012. "Feedback, a Powerful Lever in Teams: A Review." *Educational Research Review* 7 (2): 123-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003.

Gabelica, C., P. Van Den Bossche, S. De Maeyer, M. Segers, and W. Gijselaers. 2014. "The Effect of Team Feedback and Guided Reflexivity on Team Performance Change." *Learning and Instruction* 34: 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001.

Geister, S., U. Konradt, and G. Hertel. 2006. "Effects of Process Feedback on Motivation, Satisfaction, and Performance in Virtual Teams." *Small Group Research* 37 (5): 459-489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292337.

Gillies, R. M. 2003. "Structuring Cooperative Group Work in Classrooms." *International Journal of Educational Research* 39 (1-2): 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7.

Glikson, E., A. W. Woolley, P. Gupta, and Y. J. Kim. 2019. "Visualized Automatic Feedback in Virtual Teams." *Frontiers in Psychology* 10(: 814), Article 814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00814.

Goetz, T., R. Pekrun, N. Hall, and L. Haag. 2006. "Academic Emotions from a Social-Cognitive Perspective: Antecedents and Domain Specificity of Students' Affect in the Context of Latin Instruction." *The British Journal of Educational Psychology* 76 (Pt 2): 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X42860.

Hagemann, V., and J. Decius. 2024. "Does Feedback Type Matter? The Superiority of Process Feedback over Performance Feedback in Interdependent Teamwork." *Learning and Instruction* 93: 101949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101949.

Hall, J., and W. H. Watson. 1970. "The Effects of a Normative Intervention on Group Decision-Making Performance." *Human Relations* 23 (4): 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677002300404.

Handke, L., F. Klonek, T. A. O'Neill, and R. Kerschreiter. 2022. "Unpacking the Role of Feedback in Virtual Team Effectiveness." *Small Group Research* 53 (1): 41-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211057116.

Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. "The Power of Feedback." *Review of Educational Research* 77 (1): 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

Hémon, B., A. Cherbonnier, E. Michinov, E. Jamet, and N. Michinov. 2024. "When Instructions Based on Constructive Controversy Boost Synergy in Online Groups." *International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction* 40 (5): 1102-1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2132028.

Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 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.

Irving, S., E. Peterson, and G. Brown. 2006. *Conceptions of Feedback (CoF) Inventory (Version 2)*. Auckland: University of Auckland.

James, L. R., R. G. Demaree, and G. Wolf. 1993. "Rwg: An Assessment of within-Group Interrater Agreement." *Journal of Applied Psychology* 78 (2): 306-309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306.

Jellicoe, M., and A. Forsythe. 2019. "The Development and Validation of the Feedback in Learning Scale (FLS)." *Frontiers in Education* 4: 84. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00084.

Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 2004. "Cooperation and the Use of Technology." In *Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology* (2nd ed.), edited by David H. Jonassen. New York: Routledge.

King, P. E., P. Schrodt, and J. J. Weisel. 2009. "The Instructional Feedback Orientation Scale: Conceptualizing and Validating a New Measure for Assessing Perceptions of Instructional Feedback." *Communication Education* 58 (2): 235-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520802515705.

Kline, P. 1999. *The Handbook of Psychological Testing* (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315812274.

Konradt, U., M. C. Schippers, Y. Garbers, and C. Steenfatt. 2015. "Effects of Guided Reflexivity and Team Feedback on Team Performance Improvement: The Role of Team Regulatory
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

Processes and Cognitive Emergent States.” *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology* 24 (5): 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1005608.

Kyaruzi, F., J.-W. Strijbos, S. Ufer, and G. T. L. Brown. 2019. "Students' Formative Assessment Perceptions, Feedback Use and Mathematics Performance in Secondary Schools in Tanzania." *Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice* 26 (3): 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1593103.

Larson, J. R. 2007. "Deep Diversity and Strong Synergy: Modeling the Impact of Variability in Members' Problem-Solving Strategies on Group Problem-Solving Performance." *Small Group Research* 38 (3): 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301972.

Le Hénaff, B., N. Michinov, O. Le Bohec, and M. Delaval. 2015. "Social Gaming is inside: Impact of Anonymity and Group Identity on Performance in a Team Game-Based Learning Environment." *Computers & Education* 82: 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.002.

Lipnevich, A. A., and J. K. Smith. 2022. "Student – Feedback Interaction Model: Revised." *Studies in Educational Evaluation* 75: 101208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101208.

London, M., and V. I. Sessa. 2006. "Continuous Learning in Organizations: A Living Systems Analysis of Individual, Group, and Organization Learning." In *Research in Multi Level Issues* (Vol. 5), edited by F. Dansereau and F. J. Yammarino, 123–172. Bingley, UK: Emerald (MCB UP). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(06)05006-5.

Mandouit, L., and J. Hattie. 2023. "Revisiting ‘the Power of Feedback’ from the Perspective of the Learner." *Learning and Instruction* 84: 101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learinstruc.2022.101718.

Mathieu, J., M. T. Maynard, T. Rapp, and L. Gilson. 2008. "Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future." *Journal of Management* 34 (3): 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061.

Meslec, N., P. L. Curşeu, M. T. H. Meeus, and O. C. Iederan Fodor. 2014. "When None of Us Perform Better than All of Us Together: The Role of Analogical Decision Rules in Groups." *PloS One* 9 (1): E 85232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085232.

Nadler, D. A. 1979. "The Effects of Feedback on Task Group Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Research." *Organizational Behavior and Human Performance* 23 (3): 309–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(79)90001-1.

O'Neill, T. A., A. J. Aldana, J. A. Espinoza, M. P. Sperry, K. M. Brykman, and M. B. L. Donia. 2024. "Conflict Management Styles Assessment and Feedback for Student Self-Awareness and Team Development." *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education* 49 (8): 1091–1104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2350682.

Ostrander, A., D. Bonner, J. Walton, A. Slavina, K. Ouverson, A. Kohl, S. Gilbert, M. Dorneich, A. Sinatra, and E. Winer. 2020. "Evaluation of an Intelligent Team Tutoring System for a Collaborative Two-Person Problem: Surveillance." *Computers in Human Behavior* 104: 105873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.006.

Pekrun, R. 2006. "The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice." *Educational Psychology Review* 18 (4): 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.

Petkova, A. P., M. A. Domingo, and E. Lamm. 2021. "Let's be Frank: Individual and Team-Level Predictors of Improvement in Student Teamwork Effectiveness following Peer-Evaluation Feedback." *The International Journal of Management Education* 19 (3): 100538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100538.

Rui, Y., and P. Muthikrishnan. 2019. "Growth Mindset and Students' Perception of Their English Language Teachers' Feedback as Predictors of Language Proficiency of the EFL Learners." *Asian EFL Journal* 3 (2): 32–60.

Schippers, M. C., D. N. Den Hartog, P. L. Koopman, and J. A. Wienk. 2003. "Diversity and Team Outcomes: The Moderating Effects of Outcome Interdependence and Group Longevity and the Mediating Effect of Reflexivity." *Journal of Organizational Behavior* 24 (6): 779–802. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.220.

JASP Team. 2024. "Jasp (Version 0.18.1) [Computer Software]." https://jasp-stats.org/

The jamovi project. 2023. "Jamovi (Version 2.4) [Computer Software]." https://www.jamovi.org/
Tumpa, R. J., S. Skaik, M. Ham, and G. Chaudhry. 2022. "A Holistic Overview of Studies to Improve Group-Based Assessments in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review." *Sustainability* 14 (15): 9638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159638

Van Der Vegt, G. S., S. B. De Jong, J. S. Bunderson, and E. Molleman. 2010. "Power Asymmetry and Learning in Teams: The Moderating Role of Performance Feedback." *Organization Science* 21 (2): 347-361. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0452

Williams, A. 2024. "Delivering Effective Student Feedback in Higher Education: An Evaluation of the Challenges and Best Practice." *International Journal of Research in Education and Science* 10 (2): 473-501. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3404

Zhu, J., and M. M. C. Mok. 2018. "Predicting Primary Students' Self-Regulated Learning by Their Prior Achievement, Interest, Personal Best Goal Orientation and Teacher Feedback." *Educational Psychology* 38 (9): 1106-1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1497775