对行动后总结（或汇报）中的技术进行系统审查

IF 3.9 1区心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT

Organizational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1177/20413866241245314

Nathanael L. Keiser

{"title":"对行动后总结（或汇报）中的技术进行系统审查","authors":"Nathanael L. Keiser","doi":"10.1177/20413866241245314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The after-action review (AAR), also termed debrief, is a training approach that commonly encompasses some form of technology, but technology is largely a tangential consideration, which serves as the impetus for this review. Based on a systematic review of 91 empirical studies (113 AARs), a variety of nuances are identified about (1) where in the AAR technology is used, and the (2) users, (3) type, and (4) use of that technology. Technology is indeed common to AARs, but typically relegated to either aid in the task performance episode (92%) or in the provision of task feedback (52%). More broadly, the findings from the present review reflect the inherent complexity of determining how best to use technology in AARs with little extant guidance. These findings are followed by a set of six recommendations that will ideally spur greater use of technology in AARs to address longstanding issues that attenuate its effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"194 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of technology in the after-action review (or debrief)\",\"authors\":\"Nathanael L. Keiser\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20413866241245314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The after-action review (AAR), also termed debrief, is a training approach that commonly encompasses some form of technology, but technology is largely a tangential consideration, which serves as the impetus for this review. Based on a systematic review of 91 empirical studies (113 AARs), a variety of nuances are identified about (1) where in the AAR technology is used, and the (2) users, (3) type, and (4) use of that technology. Technology is indeed common to AARs, but typically relegated to either aid in the task performance episode (92%) or in the provision of task feedback (52%). More broadly, the findings from the present review reflect the inherent complexity of determining how best to use technology in AARs with little extant guidance. These findings are followed by a set of six recommendations that will ideally spur greater use of technology in AARs to address longstanding issues that attenuate its effectiveness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"194 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241245314\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241245314","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

行动后总结（AAR），也称汇报，是一种通常包含某种形式技术的培训方法，但技术在很大程度上是一个切入点，这也是本次回顾的动力所在。基于对 91 项实证研究（113 项 AAR）的系统性回顾，我们发现了以下方面的各种细微差别：(1) 在 AAR 中使用技术的位置；(2) 技术的使用者；(3) 技术的类型；(4) 技术的使用。技术确实在 AAR 中很常见，但通常被用于辅助任务执行（92%）或提供任务反馈（52%）。从更广泛的意义上讲，本综述的研究结果反映出，在几乎没有现成指导的情况下，确定如何最好地在 AARs 中使用技术具有内在的复杂性。在这些研究结果之后，我们提出了六项建议，希望这些建议能够促进在 AARs 中更多地使用技术，以解决长期以来削弱其有效性的问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A systematic review of technology in the after-action review (or debrief)

The after-action review (AAR), also termed debrief, is a training approach that commonly encompasses some form of technology, but technology is largely a tangential consideration, which serves as the impetus for this review. Based on a systematic review of 91 empirical studies (113 AARs), a variety of nuances are identified about (1) where in the AAR technology is used, and the (2) users, (3) type, and (4) use of that technology. Technology is indeed common to AARs, but typically relegated to either aid in the task performance episode (92%) or in the provision of task feedback (52%). More broadly, the findings from the present review reflect the inherent complexity of determining how best to use technology in AARs with little extant guidance. These findings are followed by a set of six recommendations that will ideally spur greater use of technology in AARs to address longstanding issues that attenuate its effectiveness.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Organizational Psychology Review Multiple-

CiteScore

10.00

自引率

1.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.