Table 1 Characterizing direct and indirect team cognition measures [4, 18, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]

Direct

Pre-task

Shared mental model measures [21, 22]

In one pre-task mental model measure, surgical laparotomy team members [21] sorted 20 tasks (e.g. insert urinary catheter; close incision) based on when (and by whom) they should be performed, using an online programme

After coming to learn of the simulation, participants privately report their expectations of the team, task, or situation

Teammate similarity: Combining all individual responses to calculate an index that reflects variability in responses across members of a team

Team or individual level accuracy: Extent to which team average or individual responses deviate from standards or expectations (i.e. rated by an expert)

Sometimes event-specific: Incorporates tasks, member roles, or key information in specialized situations. Such tools often developed through consultation with experts with a specific procedure

Commonly context-specific: Designed to examine perceptions within specific medical specialties and tasks

In-task

Situational Awareness Global Assessment measures [23, 24]

Several measures are adapted for use with trauma team members (e.g. leader, nurse, airway manager) who privately complete surveys during freezes. Brief measures incorporate multiple-choice and open-ended items, such as the following:

• ‘What equipment may you need in the next few minutes?’ [23]

• ‘Who is the team leader at this point?’ [24]

Within the task, participants pause to privately complete items reflecting their understanding of the situation, task, or team

Post-task

Post-task team situational awareness measures [4]

Members complete multiple-choice items after the task to rate the most likely next steps in treatment:

‘After getting pulses back, the team should prioritize the administration of which medication? [participant selects from list]’ [4]

After the task, participants privately complete items regarding their understanding of the preceding situation/task or the next steps for the team

Indirect

Pre-task

No specific pre-task measures identified

Team process: Items aggregated to reflect members’ and observers’ perceptions (e.g. how much team perceived to have shared understanding)

Individual ratings: Observers evaluate skills or actions of individual

Behaviour frequencies: Observer tallies frequency of team behaviours during entire simulation

Behaviour patterns: Observer ratings analysed to identify combinations of behaviours related in time

Rarely event specific: Not uniquely designed for scenarios or tasks

Often context specific: Designed for specific medical specialties and types of team tasks

Can be general to context and event: Capturing perceptions of teams across settings (i.e. needs no adaptation regardless of setting)

In-task

Situational awareness rating systems [25,26,27]

Observers code for behaviours that signal situational awareness, including behaviours like the extent that leaders seek input (e.g. request information and invite others to provide information) [27] or members’ use of closed-loop communication (e.g. call-out, check-back) [26]

Momentary coding of leader/follower behaviours or team states, using video or in vivo observer code guides

Post-task

Measures of nontechnical skills [18, 28]

Observers evaluate individual/team tendencies (e.g. ‘members gathered information and were anticipatory’) [28]

Teamwork and team process measures [29,30,31,32,33]

Observers or team members reflect on team processes (‘How would you characterize your team’s shared understanding of the clinical scenario?’) [4] or specific components (e.g. ‘Each team member demonstrated clear understanding of their role’) [29]

Post-task surveys, completed by members and/or observers, often reflecting on multiple aspects of team/individual performance