Table 1 Characteristics of included studies in scoping review
Study | Study design [32] | Discipline | Sample size | Study location | Quality of evidence [31] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gardner, 2012 [33] | Non-comparative study – multi method | Accounting & consultancy | Study 1: 78 teams Study 2: 6 teams | United States of America | Fair |
Savelsbergh et al., 2012 [34] | Non-comparative study | Building & construction | 38 teams | The Netherlands | Good |
Gervits et al., 2016 [35] | Non-comparative study – mixed methods | Student teams | 10 teams | United States of America | Fair |
Long et al., 2014 [36] | Non-comparative study | Student teams | 55 teams | China | Poor |
Bourgeon et al., 2013 [37] | Non-comparative study – multi method | Aviation | 10 teams | France | Poor |
Ellis et al., 2011 [38] | Cluster-RCT | Student teams | 54 teams | United States of America | Fair |
Kaplan et al., 2013 [39] | Non-comparative study – multi-method | Nuclear engineering | 21 teams | United States of America | Fair |
Pearsall et al., 2009 [40] | Cluster-RCT | Student teams | 83 teams | United States of America | Fair |
Price et al., 2017 [41] | Cross-sectional study | Army | 18 teams | United States of America | Poor |
Stachowski et al., 2009 [42] | Non-comparative study – multi-method | Nuclear engineering | 14 teams | United States of America | Fair |
Maruping et al., 2015 [43] | Non-comparative study | Software firm | 111 teams | United States of America | Fair |
Espevik et al., 2013 [44] | Non-comparative study | Navy | Not applicable | Norway | Poor |
Espevik et al., 2011 [45] | Non-RCT | Navy | 23 teams | Norway | Good |
Xu et al., 2018 [46] | Before-and-after or interrupted time series | Student teams | 36 teams | United States of America | Good |
Wang et al., 2020 [47] | Non-comparative study – multi method | Nuclear engineering | Study 1: 18 individuals Study 2: 5 teams | China | Good |