The PILAR Model as a Measure of Peer Ratings of Collaboration Viability in Small Groups

Benjamin Heslop, Kylie Bailey, Jonathan Paul and Elizabeth Stojanovski
Additional contact information
Benjamin Heslop: School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
Kylie Bailey: School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
Jonathan Paul: School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
Elizabeth Stojanovski: School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia

Social Sciences, 2018, vol. 7, issue 3, 1-14

Abstract: The PILAR ( prospects, involved, liked, agency, respect ) model provides a dynamical systems perspective on collaboration. Two studies are performed using peer assessment data, both testing empirical support for the five Pillars that constitute members’ perceptions of collaboration viability (CoVi). The first study analyses peer assessment data collected online from 458 first-year engineering students (404 males; 54 females). A nine-item instrument was inherited from past year’s usage in the course, expanded with four additional items to elaborate upon the agency and liked Pillars. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on student responses to test whether they thematically aligned to constructs consistent with the five Pillars. As anticipated, twelve of the thirteen items grouped into five components, each aligned with a Pillar, providing empirical evidence that the five Pillars represent perceptions of collaboration. The second study replicated the first study using a retrospective analysis of 87 items included in the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) peer assessment tool. The associated factor analyses resulted in five components and conceptual alignment of these components with Pillars was evident for three of five CATME components. We recommend a peer assessment instrument based upon PILAR as potentially more parsimonious and reliable than an extensive list of behaviours, such as employed by CATME. We also recommend including items that target inter-rater bias, which is aligned with the liked Pillar, that instruments such as CATME exclude.

Keywords: PILAR; CATME; collaboration; peer assessment; inter-rater bias (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A B N P Y80 Z00 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/3/49/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/3/49/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:3:p:49-:d:137205

Access Statistics for this article

Social Sciences is currently edited by Ms. Yvonne Chu

More articles in Social Sciences from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().