INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 14 NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 2006

Information Exchange Article

Scale Properties of the Team Role
Self-Perception Inventory
Stephen Swailes* Aitor Aritzeta
University of Hull The University of the Basque Country

We present an analysis of the dimensionality of the scales that assess the nine team roles
contained in the Team Role Self-Perception Inventory. Using a data set of over 14,000
respondents, reasonable fit to seven-item unidimensional factor models was obtained for
all scales except Implementer and Specialist. Two-factor structures for all scales showed
improvements in model fit although for all roles a small and unreliable second factor was
found. Bi-dimensional structures reflect the separate loading of negatively worded items
and/or different item content areas. Five-item scales provide a more economical version of
the inventory and areas for further development of the instrument are identified.

Introduction research studies is less common. For exceptions see

O’Doherty (2005) and Senior (1997).

O rganizations rely heavily on teamwork to sustain a

competitive position in their marketplace. The
notion that individuals display distinctive but natural roles
in work teams seems widely acknowledged as several
attempts have been made to develop typologies of team
roles (Davis, Millburn, Murphy, & Woodhouse, 1992;
Margerison & McCann, 1990; Parker, 1990; Spencer &
Pruss, 1992). One typology of nine team roles that is widely
used in Europe and elsewhere was produced by Meredith
Belbin in the United Kingdom following his research into
the effects of team composition on team performance
(Belbin, 1981, 1993; Belbin, Aston, & Mottram, 1976).
The nine roles are illustrated in Appendix A.
The typology is operationalized through the Team Role
Self-Perception Inventory (TRSPI) which produces an
assessment of a person’s preferences towards each of the
roles in terms of a rank ordering. Use of the TRSPI should
be accompanied by a parallel instrument, the Observer
Assessment Sheet (see Senior & Swailes, 1998), which asks
people who know the person being assessed to select
adjectives that they feel best describe them. Perceptions
from self and others are, ideally, compared and used in
discussions about one’s team role in the context of personal
and team development. While the Observer sheet is widely
used in training and development situations, its use in
*Address for correspondence: Stephen Swailes, Hull University
Business School, University of Hull, Cottingham Rd, Hull HU6
7RX, England. E-mail: s.swailes@hull.ac.uk
The first version of the TRSPI (Belbin, 1981) measured
preferences towards eight team roles but, following
revisions, a ninth role was added such that the current
version measures preferences towards nine roles (Belbin,
1993). Despite some initial, negative assessments of its
psychometric properties (e.g., Furnham, Steele, & Pendle-
ton, 1993a; Furnham, Steele, & Pendleton, 1993b) the
TRSPI continues to be used widely in training and
development programmes and is used in studies into the
relationships between team roles and other variables. See
Aritzeta, Swailes, and Senior (in press) for a review of
empirical studies using the inventory.
Instrument Structure and Properties
One of the difficulties facing researchers who want to
assess the TRSPI’s properties stems from its structure.
Seven items are used to represent each team role making 63
items in total plus seven items that form a ‘‘dross’’ scale.
The instrument is divided into seven sections with each
section containing one item per role and one ‘‘dross’’ scale
item. Respondents distribute 10 points between the 10
items in each section such that, usually, three to five items
are scored leaving several unscored. Thus total scores
across the instrument are always equal (70) and, as such,
the inventory produces data with ipsative properties.
These properties mean that negative correlations be-
tween scale scores are inevitable and the average correla-
tion between ipsative measures is 1/(k 1) where k is the

r 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
292 Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA
SCALE PROPERTIES OF THE TRSPI
number of measures, in this case nine (Dunlap & Cornwell,
1994). In addition, due to scoring restraints, ipsative
instruments should only be used for intra-individual
comparison. This arises as ipsative scoring shows only a
person’s relative position among the several dimensions
being scored. We do not know the absolute strength of one
person’s preference for a particular team role relative to
another person, for instance, and for this reason inter-
individual comparisons should not be undertaken.
Problems associated with analysing and interpreting
ipsative data have long been recognized. The fundamental
problem is that scores given by respondents to items retain
a level of interdependence and are not independent as is the
case in a normative instrument. Because of the average
negative correlations that arise, conventional factor analy-
tic approaches are discouraged (e.g., see Dunlap &
Cornwell, 1994, for a review). Dunlap and Cornwell
deduced that principal components analysis ‘‘will produce
artifactual bipolar factors that result, not from the true
underlying relationships between the variables, but from
relationships induced solely by the ipsative nature of the
measure’’ (p. 122). The risk of identifying an incorrect
factor structure instead of the true relationships is too
great. Problems also arise when computing reliability
estimates as item scores are not measures of the construct
that they are intended to measure plus error, as Classical
Test Theory requires, but ‘‘as a response to an item within
the context of an item set and the properties of the other
items therein’’ (Meade, 2004, p. 537).
The TRSPI, as a forced-choice instrument, is open
therefore to the issues outlined above. However, it is clear
that the way forced-choice instruments are designed does
influence the scope available to analyse them. The most
extreme case occurs where an instrument represents two
factors with two items in each item set where only one item
can be scored. Saville and Willson (1991) showed that
where the number of factors is large then the correlation
between normative and ipsative scale scores is high and
that reliability estimates are not overestimated. Increasing
the number of factors decreases interdependence among
them.
The grouping of items also influences the level of
ipsativity. The most desirable situation is where an item
from one scale occurs with an item from all other scales in
an item set. It is also desirable that traits are measured with
the same number of items (Meade, 2004, p. 538). Large
item sets will also help to reduce interdependence. The
TRSPI assesses nine team roles using seven items per role.
The items are divided into nine item sets with one item per
role in each set and so scores given to items in one set are
not dependent on the scores given to any other set. In
addition, scores given to the seven items within a scale are
not dependent upon each other although they are
influenced by the scores given to other scale items.
The TRSPI produces a ranking of a person’s preferences
towards nine team roles with the highest ranked (natural)
r 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation r Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006
293
roles reflecting the scales given the highest scores. If only
scores that are given to the highest ranked roles are
analysed then the level of interdependence within these
items will be at most very small. Furthermore, the deletion
of the scores given to any ‘‘dross’’ scale items helps to
increase the level of variability in total scores that will also
be assisted by large sample sizes. In light of these features
we suggest that normative statistical approaches can be
usefully applied to TRSPI data for certain analyses (see
Hicks, 1970). While the instrument’s overall factor
structure should not be examined from TRSPI data alone,
it seems clear that scale items can be investigated for
reliability along with the factor structure of individual
scales.
Previous Psychometric Evaluation
The earliest attempts at evaluation were marked by small
sample sizes. This led to researchers assigning a ‘‘score’’ of
zero to the items that respondents did not distribute points
to in order to produce scales with seven scored items for
analysis, even though a large proportion of the items were
‘‘scored’’ in this way. We have reservations about the
appropriateness of this method because, as most items are
unscored, the covariance matrices on which reliability
estimates were based relied heavily on ‘‘scores’’ (zeros) not
provided by respondents. Reliability estimates obtained
following this procedure were low (Broucek & Randell,
1996; Furnham et al., 1993a).
While the initial studies were quite critical of the TRSPI,
more recent work using large data sets and which utilizes
only the items scored by respondents has indicated that
scale reliability is much better than previously estimated
(Swailes & McIntyre-Bhatty, 2002). Theoretically, the
scales are unidimensional and, as internal-consistency
reliability estimates assume unidimensionality it is impor-
tant to understand more about the structures of the scales
in the instrument. A review of research into the nature of
the TRSPI and the relationships between team roles and
other variables suggested that discriminant validity be-
tween the nine roles was lacking (Aritzeta et al., in press).
Previous work on the factor structure of the inventory
has demonstrated bipolar structures (Beck, Fisch, &
Bergander, 1999; Dulewicz, 1995; Furnham et al., 1993a;
Senior, 1998) whether using the TRSPI or personality
measures to construct team roles and some authors have
explained factor bidimensionality in terms of the ipsative
format of the TRSPI. However, acknowledging that such
an effect is present to some extent, it is necessary to explore
further whether the internal structure of the TRSPI’s scales
could be a reason for the lack of discriminant validity and
whether their structure can explain factor structures found
by previous authors. If scale structures are incoherent or
depart strongly from unidimensionality then this could be
an explanation for weak discrimination between team
roles.
Volume 14 Number 3 September 2006
294
Only one previous study has looked at this issue and
confirmatory factor analysis revealed that five scales
showed very good fit to a unidimensional structure as
indicated by p values above .05 (Swailes & McIntyre-
Bhatty, 2003). These scales were Coordinator, Monitor
Evaluator, Plant, Specialist, and Teamworker. The other
four scales showed less good fit: Completer Finisher C/
df 5 1.86, comparative fit index (CFI) 5 .91; Implementer
C/df 5 3.32, CFI 5 .85; Resource Investigator C/df 5 1.80,
CFI 5 .95 and Shaper C/df 5 2.63, CFI 5 .95. In addition,
there were indications that the Completer Finisher,
Implementer and Shaper scales were bi-dimensional and
the sample sizes were less than 100 for two roles and
between 100 and 200 for five roles. This paper presents a
more detailed analysis of scale structures on a larger sample
in an attempt to provide a more exhaustive exploration of
the instrument’s properties and the stability of its scales.
Method
Sample
The study used data from 14,311 respondents to the
English version of the nine-role TRSPI. The dataset was
provided by the test publisher and respondents are drawn
from a wide range of occupations, management roles and
seniority. Forty per cent of respondents were female.
Data Analysis
Data were analysed with AMOS version 5.0 and exploration
of the data suggested that asymptotically distribution-free
(ADF) estimation should be used in light of the sharp
departures from normality observed for most variables. This
was confirmed by running 1000 bootstrap samples to
compare estimation criteria: the smallest mean discrepancy
was obtained with ADF estimation. One-factor models in
which all seven items loaded onto a single factor were fitted
to the data. Subsequently, the specification search facility in
AMOS was used to examine the fit of all possible two-factor
structures. In this approach, any measured variable (in this
case the scored items) can depend upon any factor
(Arbuckle, 2003). With seven items loading onto two factors
there are potentially 16,284 (214) possible models. Most of
these models are discarded as unidentified or as inadmissible
or because of poor fit indices. To help choose from the
surviving two-factor models, scree plots and best-fit plots
were examined for each of the model fitting attempts and
these suggested evaluation of models with 15 parameters.
Assessing Fit
There are many ways of assessing the fit of structural models
although much judgement remains in reaching decisions
about how well data fit a model – see Medsker, Williams,
and Holahan (1994) for a review. A non-significant p value
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
STEPHEN SWAILES AND AITOR ARITZETA
for the discrepancy function, C, is an indicator that there is
no significant difference between the data and the model
and is thus an indicator of very good fit. Small differences
between the model and the data will however yield
significant p values for C when sample sizes become large
(typically over 100) and so other fit indices have been
developed. We used the ratio of C to the number of degrees
of freedom in the model (C/df) which is ideally below three
(Medsker et al., 1994), the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) which below .08 represents
‘‘reasonable’’ fit and below .05 represent ‘‘close’’ fit (Browne
& Cudeck, 1993), the lower and upper limits of a 90%
confidence interval on the population value of RMSEA and
a p value (PCLOSE) for testing the null hypothesis that
RMSEA is no greater than .05. Also reported are the
normed fit index (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980) which if less
than .9 usually indicates substantial scope for improvement,
the incremental fit index (Bollen, 1989) which when close to
unity indicates very good fit, the goodness of fit index which
also approaches unity indicating very good fit and the CFI
which is 1.0 at perfect fit and which is ideally .95 or above
(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Reliability was assessed using a
formula for composite reliability (Bagozzi, 1994) along with
Cronbach’s a for comparison.
Results
Thirty-seven items had a modal score of two and 26 had a
modal score of one. Mean item scores ranged from 1.58 to
2.69. The item scored the least (a Monitor Evaluator item)
was scored 3149 times and the item scored most often
(a Teamworker item) was scored 11,498 times. Across the
whole data set the numbers of respondents that had scored
all seven items in a scale ranged from 257 for the Plant scale
to 1229 for the Shaper scale.
Single Factor Models
For the seven-item scales, reasonable fit as judged through
non-significant p values for C was obtained for Completer
Finisher, Co-ordinator, Monitor Evaluator and Teamwor-
ker. Using C/df and RMSEA as a guide, Plant, Resource
Investigator and Shaper also fitted reasonably well although
Resource Investigator items 5 and 6 had non-significant
loadings (p4.05) onto the latent factor. Implementer and
Specialist scale data appeared to fit least well and for the
Specialist scale item five also had a non-significant loading.
a’s were .7 or above for the Co-ordinator, Plant, Resource
Investigator, Shaper and Teamworker scales.
Two-Factor Models
All two-factor models showed improved fit over one-factor
models with all but the Implementer, Shaper and Specialist
scales yielding non-significant p values for C. However, the
r 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation r Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006
SCALE PROPERTIES OF THE TRSPI 295

Implementer scale showed other good indicators (CFI .91,
RMSEA .03). The intercorrelation, r, between the two
factors in each scale was mostly moderate to strong. The
lowest intercorrelation, .31, was for Completer Finisher
whereas others ranged from .41 (Implementer) to .89
(Resource Investigator).
Factor loadings revealed a consistent pattern such that
for Completer Finisher, Co-ordinator, Implementer, Shaper
and Teamworker, the second and seventh items in each
scale loaded onto the second factor. Two-item second
factors were also observed for Monitor Evaluator (items 2
and 4), Plant (items 5 and 7) and Specialist (items 2 and 5).
The only exception to this pattern, Resource Investigator,
split into a four-item factor (items 1, 2, 3, 7) and a three-
item factor for the best fitting model. The composite
reliability of the smaller factors, however, was low and
ranged from .35 to .59 except for Resource Investigator
(.69) and Shaper (.72). Composite reliability of the
remaining five item factors (four items in the case of
Resource Investigator) was .7 or above for five scales and
.69 for Shaper, .61 for Implementer and Specialist, and .58
for Monitor Evaluator.
Parsimonious One-Factor Scales
In light of the weak properties shown by the small, two-
item factors further tests were conducted to find more
parsimonious scales. With the small factors discarded, five-
item unidimensional models were tested and this produced
improvements for all scales although Implementer, Moni-
tor Evaluator and Specialist continued to show poor
reliability (a and composite reliability less than about .7).
Although the data from the Resource Investigator scale
split into a four-item and a three-item factor, the fit of a
five-item model obtained by dropping items 5 and 6 was
still good (C 5.9, df 5, p .31, a .73) (Table 1).

Table 1. Fit indices for team role scales

Team role
and model C p C/df GFI NFI IFI CFI RMSEA RMSEA L–H PCLOSE r a cr n
CF 1F7 17.7 .22 1.26 .98 .77 .94 .93 .024 0–.040 .920 .63 .67 464
CF 2F 14.7 .33 1.13 .98 .81 .97 .97 .016 0–.05 .947 .31
CF 1F5 8.9 .11 1.77 .99 .85 .93 .92 .041 0–.084 .575 .70 .72
CO 1F7 22.5 .07 1.61 .96 .69 .85 .83 .040 0–.069 .682 .70 .74 385
CO 2F 15.4 .28 1.19 .97 .79 .96 .95 .022 0–.058 .51
CO 1F5 8.5 .13 1.17 .98 .85 .93 .92 .043 0–.091 .530 .73 .79
IMP 1F7 62.6 .000 4.47 .95 .61 .67 .65 .059 .044–.074 .153 .57 .57 1010
IMP 2F 25.1 .022 1.94 .98 .84 .92 .91 .030 .011–.048 .967 .41
IMP 1F5 16.5 .006 3.3 .98 .84 .89 .88 .048 .023–.074 .510 .58 .61
ME IF7 22.4 .07 1.6 .97 .66 .84 .81 .041 0–.071 .655 .64 .66 363
ME 2F 11.8 .55 .90 .98 .82 1.02 1.0 .000 0–.048 .960 .67
ME 1F5 4.5 .48 .90 .99 .91 1.01 1.0 .000 0–.069 .834 .57 .58
PL 1F7 27.5 .016 1.97 .93 .69 .82 .80 .061 .026–.095 .260 .78 .78 257
PL 2F 19.8 .10 1.52 .95 .78 .91 .90 .045 0–.083 .537 .70
PL 1F5 10.2 .07 2.05 .97 .84 .91 .90 .064 0–.120 .284 .76 .75
RI IF7 25.6 .029 1.83 .95 .49 .68 .60 .049 .015–.078 .484 .78 .48 347
RI 2F 13.1 .11 1.64 .97 .66 .83 .78 .043 0–.083 .560 .89
RI 1F4 5.1 .08 2.53 .96 .67 .77 .68 .067 0–.141 .265 .69 .70
SH IF7 57.1 .000 4.1 .96 .75 .80 .79 .050 .037–.064 .470 .71 .70 1229
SH 2F 38.0 .000 2.9 .98 .83 .88 .88 .040 .025–.054 .868 .72
SH 1F5 15.8 .007 3.1 .99 .90 .93 .93 .042 .020–.066 .676 .69 .69
SP 1F7 44.0 .000 3.1 .90 .53 .62 .59 .090 .060–.120 .015 .61 .63 268
SP 2F 27.0 .013 2.08 .94 .71 .83 .81 .063 .028–.097 .229 .44
SP 1F5 6.5 .26 1.3 .98 .88 .97 .97 .034 0–.090 .585 .59 .61
TW IF7 11.9 .61 .85 .99 .92 1.01 1.0 .0 0–.034 .997 .71 .72 612
TW 2F 8.7 .80 .67 .99 .94 1.03 1.0 .0 0–.026 .999 .78
TW 1F5 4.0 .54 .81 .99 .97 1.01 1.0 .0 0–.058 .948 .71 .72

Notes: CF 1F7, seven item, one-factor model for Completer Finisher scale; CF 2F, seven-item, two-factor model; CF
1F5, five item, one-factor model; a, Cronbach’s a, r, factor intercorrelation for the two-factor models; cr, composite
reliability.RMSEA L–H gives the lower and higher limits of a 90% confidence interval on the population value of RMSEA.

r 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation r Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Volume 14 Number 3 September 2006
296
Discussion
These results give a much clearer insight into the nature of
the TRSPI’s scales than was available previously. The
correspondence between items and scales and the wording
of individual scale items were explicit in the original eight-
role version but are masked in the computerized nine-role
version. However, we were able to match our factor results
to item wording for each scale in order to explore the factor
structures obtained. One general explanation for better
fitting bi-dimensional structures is the use in most scales of
some negatively worded items or item wording that has
negative connotations in contrast to a majority of unequi-
vocally positively worded items.
Within the Co-ordinator scale, factor 1 loaded positive
statements about getting agreement whereas factor 2
loaded items containing ‘‘not’’ or ‘‘cannot’’. Implementer
factor 1 loaded positive statements about making things
happen, factor 2 loaded items containing, ‘‘I am not at ease
. . .’’ or ‘‘I find it difficult to . . .’’. Monitor Evaluator factor
1 loaded items reflecting rational approaches to situations
whereas factor 2 loaded items containing the wording ‘‘. . .
makes it difficult for me . . .’’ and ‘‘. . . to refute unsound
propositions . . .’’, the second of which is akin to double-
negative wording. Plant factor 1 loaded imagining and
innovating and factor 2 loaded an item with, ‘‘I am
sometimes poor at . . .’’, i.e., wording with a negative
connotation.
A second explanation for better fitting two-factor
structures is that item wording for some scales appears to
tap slightly different content areas. Completer Finisher
factor 1 loaded diligence and urgency whereas factor 2
loaded negative connotations about communicating with
others. Resource Investigator factor 1 loaded creating ideas
whereas factor 2 captured items about making new
contacts. Shaper factor 1 loaded self-assertion whereas
factor 2 loaded dominating behaviour. Specialist factor 1
loaded sensitivity to contributing to discussions and factor
2 loaded items about having and using specialist knowl-
edge. Teamworker factor 1 is concerned with creating
relationships and factor 2 is concerned with sensitivity to
others; factor 2 items also have a negative wording
connotation.
These properties help to explain the findings of a recent
review of empirical studies that have used the TRSPI that
showed that team roles could be classified as opposing two-
by-two pairings or in two well-differentiated groups
(Aritzeta et al., in press). In the two-by-two classifications
Plant contrasted with Team Worker and Implementer,
and, Shaper contrasted with Teamworker and Monitor
Evaluator. Less clear were distinctions between Co-
ordinator and Specialist, Monitor Evaluator and Resource
Investigator. Two broad clusters were also detected. One is
formed by Teamworker, Implementer and Completer
Finisher, and in part Monitor Evaluator. In the second
cluster, Shaper and Plant, and in some respects Resource
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
STEPHEN SWAILES AND AITOR ARITZETA
Investigator, appear together. The Specialist role did not
show a clear association with either of these clusters. The
present results support previous studies (Swailes &
McIntyre-Bhatty, 2002, 2003) in showing that the Specia-
list and Implementer scales have the weakest properties and
this may explain why the Specialist role does not appear to
associate with other roles in cross-validation studies. This
explanation, however, does not hold for the Implementer
role which does appear to associate with other roles. The
alternative explanation that the Specialist role is, by
definition, a relatively independent role and as such would
not be expected to correlate with other roles cannot be
discounted.
Conclusions
This paper adds to the literature on the TRSPI as it is one of
very few studies that looks into the content of the nine
scales with a sample large enough to guarantee sufficiently
high variability. Most papers that evaluate the TRSPI, in
contrast, look at relationships between the roles or between
the roles and other constructs. The broadly consistent
factor structures observed suggest that our initial premise
about the levels of ipsativity being small, at least among
scores that lead to the computation of preferred/natural
team roles, is upheld such that meaningful analysis of
intrascale properties is possible. If levels of interdepen-
dency among the data had been high then it is unlikely that
the consistent two factor results would have been seen.
By virtue of the computerized format of the nine-role
TRSPI users have to respond to all 70 items and the issues
identified above cannot easily be overcome simply by
avoiding certain items. The implications of this for users
depend upon the use being made, however. First, for team
development situations where the purpose is to stimulate
discussions about team roles and team development in a
management development context the instrument can
continue to play a valuable role bearing in mind that the
Observer Assessment Sheet should also be used in such
instances. Second, the TRSPI operationalises the team role
balance hypothesis (Belbin, 1993) which in essence states
that high performing teams require a balance of team roles
to be present. Where organizations use the TRSPI to assign
roles to individuals as a forerunner to team formation then
this study suggests that extra care is needed over Specialist
and Implementer role assignment.
Third, where the TRSPI is being used to rank team roles,
perhaps for association with other variables in a research
study, users need to be more cautious as the various scales
show a range of properties and varying degrees of potential
for improvement. On the basis of reliability estimates we
suggest that, as the instrument stands, the ‘‘bottom line’’ is
that the majority of the scales have at least adequate
properties but that the Specialist and Implementer scales
appear to able to benefit from further development. Until
r 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation r Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006
SCALE PROPERTIES OF THE TRSPI
this takes place, research studies should treat findings
relating to the Specialist and Implementer roles with
particular caution.
This paper helps to form a more complete picture of the
TRSPI and its properties. The results of this study are
somewhat mixed in that while they do not demonstrate
nine robust scales it is clear that a majority of the scales
show acceptable properties.
References
Arbuckle, J.L. (2003) Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide.
Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S. and Senior, B. (in press) The team role self-
perception inventory: Development, validity and applications
for team building. Journal of Management Studies.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994) Structural equation models in marketing
research: Basic principles. In R.P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of
marketing research (pp. 317–385). Oxford: Blackwell.
Beck, D., Fisch, R. and Bergander, W. (1999) Functional roles in
work groups – an empirical approach to the study of group role
diversity. Psychologische Beiträge, 41, 288–307.
Belbin, M. (1981) Management teams, why they succeed or fail.
London: Heinemann.
Belbin, M. (1993) Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Belbin, M., Aston, R. and Mottram, D. (1976) Building effective
management teams. Journal of General Management, 3, 23–29.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnett, D.G. (1980) Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bollen, K.A. (1989) A new incremental fit index for general
structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research,
17, 303–316.
Broucek, W.G. and Randell, G. (1996) An assessment of the
construct validity of the Belbin Self-Perception Inventory and
Observer’s Assessment from the perspective of the five-factor
model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
69, 389–405.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In K.A. Bollen and J.S. Long (Eds), Testing structural
equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Davis, J., Millburn, P., Murphy, T. and Woodhouse, M. (1992)
Successful team building: How to create teams that really work.
London: Kogan Page.
Dulewicz, V. (1995) A validation of Belbin’s team roles from
16PF and OPQ using bosses’ ratings of competence.
r 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation r Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006
297
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68,
81–99.
Dunlap, W.P. and Cornwell, J.M. (1994) Factor analysis of ipsative
measures. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 29, 115–126.
Furnham, A., Steele, H. and Pendleton, D. (1993a) A psychometric
assessment of the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66,
245–257.
Furnham, A., Steele, H. and Pendleton, D. (1993b) A response to Dr
Belbin’s reply. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 66, 261.
Hicks, L.E. (1970) Some properties of ipsative, normative and
forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74,
167–184.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indices in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.
Margerison, C. and McCann, D. (1990) Team management.
London: W.H. Allen.
Meade, A.W. (2004) Psychometric problems and issues involved
with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 531–552.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994) A review of
current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational
behaviour and human resources management research. Journal
of Management, 20, 439–464.
O’Doherty, D.M. (2005) Working as part of balanced team. Inter-
national Journal of Engineering Education, 21, 113–120.
Parker, G.M. (1990) Team players and teamwork: The new
competitive business strategy. Oxford: Josey-Bass.
Saville, P. and Willson, E. (1991) The reliability and validity of
normative and ipsative approaches in the measurement of
personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 219–238.
Senior, B. (1997) Team roles and team performance: Is there ‘really’
a link? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
70, 241–258.
Senior, B. (1998) An empirically-based assessment of Belbin’s team
roles. Human Resource Management Journal, 8, 54–60.
Senior, B. and Swailes, S. (1998) A comparison of the Belbin self
perception inventory and observer’s assessment sheet as mea-
sures of an individual’s team roles. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 6, 1–8.
Spencer, J. and Pruss, A. (1992) Managing your team. London:
Piatkus.
Swailes, S. and McIntyre-Bhatty, T. (2002) The ‘‘Belbin’’ team role
inventory: Reinterpreting reliability estimates. Journal of Man-
agerial Psychology, 17, 529–536.
Swailes, S. and McIntyre-Bhatty, T. (2003) Scale structure of the
team role self perception inventory. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76, 525–529.
Volume 14 Number 3 September 2006

Appendix A
Table A1. Team role descriptors, strengths and allowed weaknesses
Team role Descriptors
Completer finisher (CF) Anxious, conscientious, introvert,
self-controlled, self-disciplined,
submissive and worrisome
Implementer (IMP) Conservative, controlled, disciplined, efficient,
inflexible, methodical, sincere, stable and
systematic
Teamworker (TW) Extrovert, likeable, loyal, stable, submissive,
supportive, unassertive, and uncompetitive
Specialist (SP) Expert, defendant, not interested in others,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
serious, self-disciplined, efficient
Monitor Evaluator (ME) Dependable, fair-minded, introverted, low
drive, open to change, serious, stable and
unambitious
Co-ordinator (CO) Dominant, trusting, extrovert, mature, positive, Mature, confident, a good chairperson, clarifies Can be seen as manipulative.
self-controlled, self-disciplined and stable
Plant (PL) Dominant, imaginative, introvert, original,
radical-minded, trustful and uninhibited
Shaper (SH) Abrasive, anxious, arrogant, competitive,
dominant, edgy, emotional, extrovert,
impatient, impulsive, outgoing and
self-confident
Resource Investigator (RI) Diplomatic, dominant, enthusiastic, extrovert,
flexible, inquisitive, optimistic, persuasive,
positive, relaxed, social and stable
Source: Belbin (1993, p. 22).
r 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation r Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006
298
Strengths Allowed weaknesses
Painstaking, conscientious, searches out errors Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant
and omissions, delivers on time to delegate
Disciplined, reliable, conservative and Somewhat inflexible. Slow to
efficient, turns ideas into practical actions respond to new possibilities
Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic, Indecisive in crunch situations
listens, builds, averts friction, calms the waters
Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated; Contributes on a narrow front only.
provides knowledge and skills in rare supply Dwells on technicalities
Sober, strategic and discerning, sees all Lacks drive and ability to inspire
options, judges accurately others
goals, promotes decision making, delegates Offloads personal work
well
Creative, unorthodox, solves difficult problems Too preoccupied to communicate
effectively
Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure, has Prone to provocation. Offends
drive and courage to overcome obstacles people’s feelings
Extrovert, communicative, explores Over-optimistic, Loses interest
opportunities, develops contacts after initial enthusiasm
STEPHEN SWAILES AND AITOR ARITZETA