團體觀點：醫院品管圈之結構與效能

Group Perspective: Group Structure and Effectiveness of Quality Control Circles in Hospitals

10.6288/TJPH2005-24-02-09

洪素英(Su-Ying Hung)；謝碧晴(Pi-Ching Hsieh)；蘇慧芳(Hui-Fang Su)

團體層級分析 ； 團體規模 ； 團體規範 ； 團體任務凝聚力 ； 團體效能 ； group-level analysis ； group size ； group norms ； group task cohesion ； group effectiveness

台灣公共衛生雜誌

24卷2期（2005 / 04 / 01）

173 - 183

繁體中文

目標：探討台北地區區域級以上醫院之品管圈團體結構（團體規模、團體合作規範、團體任務規範及團體任務凝聚力）與團體效能之相關性。方法：採橫斷式問卷調查法，台北地區已推行品管圈之醫院共19家，有16家醫院品管圈圈員同意接受調查，共收集263個有效品管圈樣本，包括1,914位品管圈圈員，團體回收率達86.80%。以團體為分析單位，每個團體內的個人層級之資料將聚合代表該團體的分數，以內部相關係數(Intraclass correlation coefficients, ICCs), eta squared (η^2)，及單因子變異數分析(one-way analysis of variance)檢定，確定個人層級資料可聚合後代表團體層級之資料，再以迴歸模式進行四個與團體相關之研究假說檢定。結果：團體合作規範、團體任務規範、團體任務凝聚力與團體效能呈正相關之三個假說獲得支持，共解釋51%團體效能的變異量，但團體規模與團體效能則無顯著的正相關，該假說未獲支持。結論：品管圈具有較高的團體合作規範、團體任務規範及團體任務凝聚力的特質時，會有較好的績效表現，因此建議未來可積極建立團體合作規範、團體任務規範及團體任務凝聚力來促進良好的團體互動，以提昇團體效能。

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between group structures (group size, cooperation norms, task norms, and task cohesion) and group effectiveness of the quality circles of hospitals in Taipei area. Methods: A cross-sectional research design was adopted for data collection. Two hundred and sixty-three quality circle groups with 1,914 individuals from the 16 of the 19 hospitals in the Taipei area were enrolled for analysis. The groups' response rate was 86.8%. Because the unit for analysis was the quality circle group, the aggregated individual-level data in a single group were used as the representative values for the group. Results of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Eta-squared (η^2), and one-way analysis of variance showed that aggregated individual-level data were capable of representing the group level data. Multiple regression analysis was adopted to test four hypotheses. Results: Groups with higher levels of cooperation norms, task norms, and task cohesion had greater feeling of group effectiveness as perceived by the members. In spite of this group size was not considerably associated with group effectiveness. The cooperation norms, task norms, and task cohesion accounted for 51% of the variance in group effectiveness. Conclusions: It was concluded that the group members having better feeling of cooperation norms, task norms, and task cohesion demonstrated higher group effectiveness. To improve the performance of group, the strategies for building group norms and creating a cohesive culture should be taken by the organization.

1. Alexander JA,Lichtenstein R,D` Aunno T(1996).The effects of treatment team diversity and size on assessments of team functioning.Hosp Health Serv Adm.
2. Bruning NS、Liverpool PR(1993)。Membership in quality circles and participation in decision-making。J Appi Behav Sci。
3. Campion MA,Medsker GJ,Higgs AC(1993).Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.Pers Psychol.
4. Campion MA,Papper EM,Medsker GJ(1996).Relations between team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension.Pers Psychol.
5. Carless SA,de Paola C(2000).The measurement of cohesion in work teams.Small Group Res.
6. Chang A,Bordia P(2001).A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship.Small Group Res.
7. Chatman JA,Flynn FJ(2001).The influence of demographic heterogeity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams.Acad Manage J.
8. Cohen SG,Ledford GE,Spreitzer GM(1996).A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness.Hum Relat.
9. Cossé TJ,Ashworth DN,Weisenberger TM(1999).The effects of team size in a marketing simulation.J Mark Theory Pact.
10. Dale BG、Hayward SG(1984)。Quality circle failures in UK maaufacturing companies-a study。Omega。
11. Deeter-Schmelz DR(1997).Applying teams to logistics processes: Information acquisition and the impact of team role clarity and norms.J Bus Logistics.
12. Forbes S,Taunton RE(1994).Reliability of aggregated organizational data: An evaluation of five empirical indices.J Nurs Meas.
13. Gladstein DL(1984)。Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness。Adm Sd Q。
14. Glick WH(1985).Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research.Acad Manage Rev.
15. Haleblian J,Finkelstein S(1993).Top management team size, CEO domainance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion.Acad Manage J.
16. Hughes LC,Anderson RA(1994).Issues regarding aggregation of data in nursing systems research.J Nurs Meas.
17. Hyatt DE,Ruddy TM(1997).An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech.Pers Psychol.
18. Langfred C(1998).Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance.Small Group Res.
19. Marks ML、Mirvis PH、Hackktt EJ、Grady JF(1986)。Employee participation in a quality circle program: Impact on quality of work life, productivity, and absenteeism。J Appi Psychol。
20. Mullen B,Copper C(1994).The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.Psychol Bull.
21. Schwartz S(1994).The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: The potential misuse of a concept and the consequences.Am S Public Health.
22. Sethi R,Smith DC,Park CW(2001).Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovative- ness of new consumer products.J Mark Res.
23. Shanley M,Langfred C(1998).The importance of organizational context II: An empirical test of work group cohesiveness and effectiveness in two governmental bureaucracies.Public Adm Q.
24. Shortell SM,Rousseau DM,Gillies RR,Devers KS,Simons TL(1991).Organizational Assessment in intensive care units (ICUs): Construct development, reliability, and validity of the ICU nurse-physician questionnaire.Med Care.
25. Smeltzer ER、Kedia BL(1985)。Knowing the repes: Organizational requirements for quality circles。Bus Horiz。
26. Steel RP、Lloyd RF(1988)。Cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes of participation in quality circles: Conceptual and Empirical findings。J AppI Behav Sci。
27. Stewart GE,Barrick MR(2000).Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type.Acad Manage J.
28. Xie JL,Johns G(2000).Interactive effects of absence culture salience and group cohesiveness: A multi-level and cross-level analysis of work absenteeism in the Chinese context.J Occup Organ Psychol.
29. 鄧小雅(1999)。台北，國立台灣大學醫療機構管理研究所硕士論文。
30. 踵國彪、潘憶文(2000)。醫品圈的推行现况。
31. 黄敏萍(2000)。跨功能任務轉告隊之結構效能任務特性舆社會系格之影響。

1. 鄭若瀅、劉芝妘、鄒佩頴、葉怡媜、黃莉君、周佩君(2014)。運用醫品圈手法降低化學治療處方異常率。醫務管理期刊，15(4)，342-358。