Skip to main content
Download PDF

Team interaction behaviors correlates with team creativity among nursing students: Canonical correlation and moderation analyses

BMC Nursing volume 23, Article number: 484 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Prior studies have indicated team members’ interaction behaviors may predict creativity among nursing students.

Methods

This study investigated the correlation between interaction behaviors and creativity, both individual- and team-level, among nursing students. In this cross-sectional quantitative study, data were obtained from self-reported questionnaires. Individual creativity was assessed using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking scale; the perceived team interaction behavior and team creativity were assessed using validated instruments. Canonical correlation analysis was conducted to determine the overall correlation between interaction behaviors, and creativity, and the moderating effect of female proportion dominance was also examined.

Results

A total of 164 nursing students (84.1% female) arranged into 14 teams were included in this study. Canonical correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between interaction behaviors and creativity (correlation = 0.88). All dimensions of interactive behaviors were positively related to creativity dimensions. A stronger correlation to team creativity (correlation = 1) was found compared to individual creativity (correlation = 0.07). This study demonstrated that individual interactive behaviors including spontaneous communication and helping behavior predicted high team creativity.

Conclusions

This insight may be valuable for nursing education programs seeking to foster creativity and effective teamwork. The potential moderating effect of female proportions on team interaction behaviors and creativity should be investigated further.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

As the global demand for personalized healthcare continues to rise, there has been a substantial escalation in the need for healthcare professionals to communicate and collaborate effectively. This is particularly crucial for providing interdisciplinary patient care and addressing complex healthcare challenges [1]. Studies have also indicated that nursing students who learn to work collaboratively within healthcare teams tend to exhibit improved nursing practice and enhanced problem-solving abilities [2, 3]. In response to these evolving requirements, nursing training curricula are being revised with more emphasis on fostering teamwork and collaboration. These curricular adaptations are designed to prepare nurses to meet the demands of the dynamic healthcare environment [4, 5].

A growing body of evidence has indicated that a significant portion of creative behaviors is most evident in team contexts. Interdisciplinary education programs with a particular emphasis on interactive behaviors have been shown to foster team creativity [6]. Several interactive behaviors have been identified to enhance teamwork competency including constructive controversy, helping behavior, and spontaneous communication [6,7,8]. Consequently, enhancing interaction behaviors that contribute positively to creativity and innovation—characterized by the implementation of creative ideas within the teams, has become a key element in addressing complex healthcare challenges faced by healthcare teams [7].

In addition to the established positive factors of team interaction behaviors, such as cooperation, collaboration, and communication among team members [9], there is a range of other variables and mediators that may also influence team interactions. For instance, the potential impact of demographic variation on team effectiveness and the influence of gender composition on team interactions and outcomes have been the subject of investigation, but findings have been inconsistent. Some suggested that a team's demographic composition can influence the degree to which group members display helping behaviors [10]. In contrast, some researchers found no significant relationship between gender composition and constructive controversy [11]. The influence of gender diversity on team creativity has also yielded inconclusive findings. Some studies have reported that gender diversity fosters team creativity or innovation [12,13,14,15]. Conversely, gender diversity has been associated with negative impacts [16], or found to have no significant effects on team creativity [17, 18]. In the context of the nursing profession, which is a female-dominant occupation, the impact of more homogenous gender composition on team interaction behavior and team creativity has not been explored in detail.

While existing research has explored team creativity from either an individual perspective [19, 20] or a team-based viewpoint [21, 22], only a limited number of studies have comprehensively examined team creativity from both angles. A prior study conducted within a telecom company suggested that team creativity is influenced by individual creativity and shared mental models [23]. As for nursing education, previous studies have predominantly focused on individual creativity and pedagogical approaches that promote collaborative teamwork, and much less is known about how team interactions and team creativity impact collaborative outcomes within nursing teams.

This study aimed to investigate positive team interactive behaviors that correlate with creativity, both at individual and team levels in nursing teams. We proposed that the dynamics of team interaction played a pivotal role in team creativity, and that team interaction behaviors would correlate with the creativity of individual team members as well as team creativity. Considering that nursing is typically a female-dominant occupation, this study also attempted to examine the potential moderating effects of female-dominant teams on the relationships between team interaction behaviors and creativity.

This enhanced understanding of the association between team interactive behaviors and creativity may inform curriculum aimed at promoting effective collaboration and enhancing creativity in nursing teams, ultimately contributing to improved healthcare practices.

Methods

Research design

This is a cross-sectional, survey study. Data were collected from self-reported surveys of nursing students.

Sample and setting

Nursing students from a science and technology university in northern Taiwan who were enrolled in an interdisciplinary course as part of their 2- or 4-year nursing programs were included in this study. After signing informed consent forms, participants received a coded package with the relevant questionnaires. Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the hospital ethics committees (IRB number: 201800212B0) before data collection. G*Power was used to determine the minimum sample size of 77 (setting was: predictor variables, 3; confidence interval: 95%; power: 0.81).

Instruments

Three self-report questionnaires were scaled instruments asking for participants to rate their team interaction behaviors (TIB), team creativity (TCr) and individual creativity. Appendix shows sample statements from three instruments, each described and measured as follows:

Interaction behaviors

Team interaction behaviors were assessed using a validated 24-item questionnaire, translated and developed for the Chinese population [24]. This questionnaire has been used in several recent studies, the range of reliability was between 0.89 and 0.92 [8, 25]. A five-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), was used to rate survey questions. The questionnaire included subscales measuring spontaneous communication (10 questions), helpful behaviors (10 questions), and constructive controversy (4 questions). The three subscales were added to form the total scale score, and higher scores represented a greater perception of interaction behaviors. In this study, the three interaction behaviors have Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging between 0.75 and 0.93.

Individual creativity

Individual creativity was assessed using the previously developed Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) – Taiwan version [26]. In brief, the TTCT consists of a verbal version (TTCT-V), and a figural version (TTCT-F). TTCT-V assesses three key constructs: fluency, flexibility, and originality, with a total score ranging from 0 to 176, and subscale scores for fluency, flexibility, and originality ranging from 0 to 50, 0 to 26, and 0 to 100. TTCT-F includes the same constructs in TTCT-V, plus elaboration (measuring the amount of detail in the responses). TTCT-F's total score ranges from 0 to 377, with subscale scores for fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration ranging from 0 to 57, 0 to 35, 0 to 114, and 0 to 171, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.84 for TTCT-V and 0.76 for TTCT-F for this study.

According to the recommendation by Okuda et al., 1991 [27], TTCT-V and TTCT-F could be regarded as two distinct forms of creativity. Therefore, in this study individual creativity was defined as the sum of TCT-V and TTCT-F. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for individual creativity was 0.83, and validity for TTCT-V and TTCT-F were confirmed satisfactory using factor analyses.

Team creativity

Team creativity was assessed using a 10-item questionnaire [20], adapted from an instrument initially designed for the Chinese population [24]. Respondents rated all questions on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The total score is defined as the average of the sum of scores for each item in the questionnaire. It has consisted high reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranging from 0.86 to 0.95 [28,29,30], and the alpha reliability was 0.96 for this study.

Data analysis

Age and gender proportions were described using mean ± standard deviation. Canonical correlation analysis was performed to determine the overall correlation between the two sets of variables— interaction behaviors and creativity. It is assumed in the canonical correlation analysis that the relationships should be linear i.e. assuming that there should be low multicollinearity in the data. If the two sets of data are highly inter-correlated, then the coefficient of the canonical correlation is invalid. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test can be used for checking the assumption of the normality. If the test is significant (i.e. p value < 0.05) means that the multivariate normality is invalid. Structure coefficient (canonical loadings) > 0.45 was defined as indicative of a significant contribution to the canonical function, suggesting a higher probability of replicability [31, 32].

After identifying the relevant independent and dependent variables, we used the SPSS PROCESS macro [33], to investigate the potential moderating effects of the female proportion in the team on the relationships between team creativity (dependent variable) and each of the team interaction behaviors (independent variables). This analysis encompassed three models, where we performed regression analyses for students' team creativity scores, considering the proportion of females and three different interaction behaviors. Evaluation of model assumptions for the multiple regression analysis included linearity, multivariate normality, homoscedasticity, and independence (i.e. No multicollinearity). Scatterplots were employed to test whether there was a linear or curvilinear relationship. Multivariate normality assumed that the residuals of the multiple regression were normally distributed. Homoscedasticity states that the variance of error terms was similar across the values of the independent variables. A plot of standardized residuals versus predicted values was used to test whether points were equally distributed across all values of the independent variables. Finally, the multiple regression model assumed that the independent variables were not highly correlated with each other. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were used to test for multicollinearity. Each model examined the interaction between the proportion of females and the impact of a particular interaction behavior on team creativity: This involved examining constructive controversy in Model 1, helping behaviors in Model 2, and spontaneous communication in Model 3. To avoid multicollinearity, mean centering was performed before conducting the multiple regression analyses to assess moderating effects. All analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20.0.

Data aggregation

In this study, data aggregation was conducted at the team level, whereby the individual responses of team members to assessment instruments were combined to generate team-level scores for both perceived interaction behaviors and team creativity. The appropriateness of data aggregation was validated using within-group agreement (Rwg) [34]. Adequate aggregation of individual data to obtain team-level responses was considered when the Rwg value was ≥ 0.70 [35, 36]. In this study, the median Rwg for both interaction behaviors and team creativity was 0.99, indicating strong agreement among individual team members' responses. This observation affirmed the appropriateness of aggregating individual data to obtain team-level responses.

Results

Among the 164 nursing students in this study, a majority of 138 (84.1%) were female, while 26 (15.9%) were male. The students had a mean age of 21.5 ± 0.75 years old. They were divided into 14 teams with ten teams comprised of 12 members and four teams of 11 members. The mean score for interaction behaviors construct were: helping behaviors (4.19, SD = 0.59), followed by spontaneous communication (4.07, SD = 0.73), and constructive controversy (4.06, SD = 0.59). The overall team creativity score was 4.16 (SD = 0.67). Every team in the study had a female-dominant gender composition, with proportions of female ranging from 75% to 91.7%. Teams 2, 5, 8, and 10 included 25% male students. It's worth noting that Team 8 had the lowest total mean scores for both the team interaction behaviors scale and team creativity. Detailed information regarding the gender composition, interaction behavior scores, and team creativity scores for each team can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographics of student teams and the descriptive statistics of team interaction behavior and team creativity scales for each team (n = 14, N = 164)
Full size table

The overall mean total score for individual creativity was 90.57 (SD = 31.39), which comprised of the TTCT-V score (mean: 44.04 (SD = 24.70)) and the TTCT-F score (mean: 46.53 (SD = 17.13)). Detailed TTCT-V and TTCT-F scores for each team can be found in Table 2. Notably, Team 8, which had the lowest team creativity score had the highest individual creativity score for scale TTCT-V and TTCT-F.

Table 2 Individual creativity measured by Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT): Verbal (V) and Figural (F) for each team (n = 14, N = 164)
Full size table

Canonical Correlation Analysis

Table 3 presented the results of the canonical correlation analysis, showing one significant function with squared canonical correlations (Rc2) of 0.77 (Table 3). The overall significance of the model was demonstrated through multivariate tests (Wilk’s λ representing unexplained variance in the model = -0.24, F (3, 160) = 55.44, p < 0.001). These results confirmed that the model accounted for a substantial proportion (76.1%) of the shared variance between the sets of variables. The findings imply strong relationships between each interaction behavior and the team creativity constructs. Redundancy analysis was performed to further explore the extent to which the canonical function explains the variance between the interaction behaviors and creativity sets, and the outcome is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Canonical correlation between total perceived interaction behaviors and creativity (individual and team creativity) scores (N = 164)
Full size table

The set of independent variables (interaction behaviors) accounted for 62.41% of the variance across the three interaction behavior constructs and 81.59% of the variability within the two creativity constructs. In contrast, the set of dependent variables (creativity) elucidated 25.57% of the variability within the two creativity constructs and 33.43% of the variability within the three interaction behavior constructs.

Fig. 1 showed the set of independent variables comprised the constructs of constructive controversy, helping behaviors, and spontaneous communication. Importantly, helping behaviors and spontaneous communication were the primary independent variables, with constructive controversy considered secondary. Regarding the set of dependent variables (i.e., creativity constructs), team creativity was the only dependent variable. Given that all structure coefficients for interaction behaviors and team creativity were positive, it indicated that higher scores on interaction behaviors associated with higher team creativity.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Canonical correlation model for the overall correlation between interaction behavior variables and creativity variables. CC: Constructive Controversy; HB: Helping Behaviors; SC: Spontaneous Communication; TC: Team Creativity; IC: Individual Creativity

Full size image

Moderation analysis

Table 4 presented the potential effect of the proportion of females in a team that moderates the relationship between interaction behaviors and team creativity. Model 1 revealed a significant interaction between proportion of females in a team and the total constructive controversy score (Female proportion x CC) (β = 0.43, 95% C.I. [0.07, 0.78], p < 0.05), indicating that female gender positively moderated the relationship between constructive controversy and team creativity. In Model 2, the interaction between female proportion and helping behaviors score (Female proportion x HB) was also significant (β = 0.46, 95% C.I. [0.18, 0.74], p < 0.01), indicating that female-dominance positively moderated the relationship between helping behaviors and team creativity. However, in Model 3, no statistically significant interaction term between the female proportion and spontaneous communication score (Female proportion x SC) was observed (β = 0.07, 95% C.I. [-0.14, 0.28], p = 0.52). This indicated that the gender composition did not act as moderator in the relationship between spontaneous communication and team creativity.

Table 4 Regression analysis parameters for examining potential moderating effects of the proportion of females on the relationship between team-level perceptions of each interaction behavior and team creativity scores
Full size table

Discussion

The canonical correlation analysis confirmed the hypothesis that the set of interaction behaviors would correlate positively with the set of creativity variables. Notably, all three interaction behaviors displayed positive associations with team creativity, while none of the interaction behaviors exhibited a significant relationship with individual creativity. Furthermore, the moderation analysis partially supported that female dominance in nursing teams is a moderator between team interaction and creativity. This indicated that the predominance of female students in the field of nursing may serve as a moderating factor in the relationships between interaction behaviors (constructive controversy and helping behaviors) and team creativity.

Consistent with the literature [37, 38], the students' perceived constructive controversy, helping behaviors, and spontaneous communication were associated with higher perceptions of team creativity in our study. Constructive controversy among the nursing student teams may have allowed team members to be confronted with credible alternative views, the acceptance of which could have helped them generate more imaginative solutions, strategies, and ideas [39]. Additionally, our findings suggest that helping behaviors were important for team creativity, possibly by allowing the students to turn challenges of cooperation, such as diverse ideas or the female-dominated composition of participants, into a resource for innovation [40]. Finally, our findings reinforced the study by McAlpine (2018) which also suggested spontaneous communication is positively associated with team idea generation [41]; using this behavior may have created opportunities for the students to share ideas, generate novel solutions, and engage in collaborative conflict resolution that made room for creativity [42].

Considering the positive impacts of each interaction behavior on team creativity, it is plausible that the combined influence of the three interaction behaviors may have enhanced the creative outcomes of the teams. Our observation that the perceived team interaction behaviors of the students did not correlate with the individual creativity score of each team member. Related research shows that personal personality, personal motivation and work team climate may affect individual creativity [43, 44]. Individual's proactive personality is positively related to individual creativity. Empirical studies have confirmed that proactive personality predicts mutual helping behavior [45], learning behavior [46], and innovation behavior [47]. Additional research would be necessary to ascertain whether team members who actively engaged in the team's interaction behaviors also displayed higher levels of individual creativity.

The majority of students in our study were female. In our investigation of moderating effects, we observed that the predominantly female student composition positively moderated the relationships between team creativity and both constructive controversy and helping behaviors. Considering the gender composition in our study, one might anticipate that the relatively small number of male participants could potentially limit their engagement in helping behaviors [10], consequently affecting the perception of team creativity among students. However, invoking social role theory, which suggests that both women and men exhibit gender-consistent helping behaviors [48], it is conceivable that the team of female predominance may have contributed to creating an environment where male students felt comfortable and supportive expressing helping behaviors. This, in turn, could have led to an enhancement of team creativity, despite the male students' minority representation. Such speculations, coupled with the current lack of literature examining the indirect effects of female dominance on the relationships between interaction behaviors and creativity within the context of nursing education, emphasize the need for further research in this area.

Limitations

The cross-sectional, single-center study design used in our research, with participants based in Taiwan, necessitates caution when extending our findings to nursing teams in different geographical regions. Furthermore, the reliance on subjective assessments from team members regarding interaction behaviors and team creativity introduces potential limitations. To address these limitations, and enrich the scope of future research, we recommend the inclusion of more objective measures, such as the academic performance of nursing students and standardized creativity assessments evaluated by faculty members. Additionally, the influence of female dominance within nursing settings on interaction behaviors and team creativity reported in this study is only preliminary, warranting further investigation. Future studies are also needed to validate our findings in countries with different nursing education and demographic diversities, to establish the generalizability of the results beyond the specific context of Taiwan, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between interaction behaviors and team creativity in nursing education.

Conclusions

The significant positive associations identified in our research suggest several avenues for enhancing the creativity and effectiveness of nursing student teams in their future roles within healthcare teams. First, nursing schools can play a pivotal role by cultivating safe and creatively enriched learning environments. Encouraging interaction behaviors among students within these environments can stimulate creative thinking and problem-solving skills, which are crucial for healthcare professionals. Second, the teaching of specific interaction behaviors, such as helping behaviors and constructive controversy, holds promise for addressing potential conflicts arising from team diversity. By equipping student teams with the skills to effectively engage in these behaviors, nursing educators can foster a cooperative atmosphere that not only reduces conflict but also enhances overall team creativity. Lastly, our findings indicate that nursing student teams characterized by a female-dominated gender distribution may experience amplified positive effects of constructive controversy and helping behaviors on team creativity. This insight could prove valuable for nursing educators responsible for structuring capstone course teams aimed at nurturing creativity among future nurses.

In conclusion, this study demonstrated the importance of nurturing interaction behaviors to foster creative learning environments in nursing education. These efforts can contribute to the development of nursing teams better prepared for the complexities of healthcare teamwork.

Availability of data and materials

All the data supporting the study findings are within the manuscript. Additional detailed information and raw data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hartman RL, Crume AL. Educating nursing students in team conflict communication. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2014;4:107–18.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Woermann U, Weltsch L, Kunz A, Stricker D, Guttormsen S. Attitude towards and readiness for interprofessional education in medical and nursing students of Bern. GMS J Med Educ. 2016;33:Doc73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hannon J, Hocking C, Legge K, Lugg A. Sustaining interdisciplinary education: developing boundary crossing governance. High Educ Res Dev. 2018;37:1424–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim HN. A conceptual framework for interdisciplinary education in engineering and nursing health informatics. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;74:91–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu HY. Inter-professional nursing education and the roles of swift trust, interaction behaviors, and creativity: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Song W, Li H, Ding N, Zhao W, Shi L, Wen D. Psychometrics properties of the team interaction scale and influencing factors of team interaction of tertiary hospital physicians in China: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019;9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu HY. The relationship between swift trust and interaction behaviors on interdisciplinary and non-interdisciplinary teams in nursing education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021;51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Dietz AS, Benishek LE, Thompson D, Pronovost PJ, Weaver SJ. Teamwork in healthcare: key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. Am Psychol. 2018;73:433–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kotlyar I, Karakowsky L. The influence of team demographic composition on individual helping behavior. Psychology. 2012;3:1010–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sun X, Jie Y, Wang Y, Xue G, Liu Y. Shared Leadership improves team novelty: the mechanism and its boundary condition. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1964.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Díaz-García C, González-Moreno A, Jose SM. Gender diversity within R&D teams: its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation. 2013;15:149–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Garcia Martinez M, Zouaghi F, Garcia MT. Diversity is strategy: the effect of R&D team diversity on innovative performance. R&D Manag. 2017;47:311–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Romero-Martínez AM, Montoro-Sánchez Á, Garavito-Hernández Y. El efecto de la diversidad de género y el nivel educativo en la innovación. Revista de Administração de Empresas. 2017;57:123–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sastre JF. The impact of R&D teams’ gender diversity on innovation outputs. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2015;24:142–62.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Han J, Han J, Brass DJ. Human capital diversity in the creation of social capital for team creativity. J Organ Behav. 2014;35:54–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang XHF, Kim TY, Lee DR. Cognitive diversity and team creativity: effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. J Bus Res. 2016;69:3231–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mo S, Ling CD, Xie XY. The curvilinear relationship between ethical leadership and team creativity: the moderating role of team faultlines. J Bus Ethics. 2019;154:229–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang M-H, Yang T-Y. 從輸入-中介-輸出觀點剖析團隊認知與問題解決對團隊創造力之影響 [Explaining team creativity through team cognition theory and problem solving based on input-mediator-output approach]. J e-Business. 2015;17:91–138 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Farh JL, Lee C, Farh CI. Task conflict and team creativity: a question of how much and when. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:1173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liang B, Gu Q. A study of separation in team member learning in goal orientation on team creativity: a mediated moderation model. Chin J Manag. 2015;12:72–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bodla AA, Tang N, Jiang W, Tian L. Diversity and creativity in cross-national teams: the role of team knowledge sharing and inclusive climate. J Manag Organ. 2018;24:711–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. De Vreede T, Boughzala I, De Vreede GJ, Reiter-Palmon R. The team creativity model: an exploratory case study. J Midwest Assoc Inf Syst. 2017;2017:19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yang Z, Xie Z, Bao G. The mechanism of teams’ swift trust and interaction behavior on team creativity. J Fuzhou Univ. 2010;6:31–4.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Xiang S, Chen G, Liu W, Zhou Q, Xing S. An empirical study of the impact of goal orientation on individual ambidexterity–moderating roles of goal interdependence and constructive controversy. Nankai Bus Rev Int. 2019;10:465–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wu CS. The Important concepts and implementation strategies of creative teaching. Taiwan Educ Rev. 2002;614:2–8 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Okuda SM, Runco MA, Berger DE. Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world problems. J Psychoeduc Assess. 1991;9:45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li R, Wang H, Huang M. From empowerment to multilevel creativity: the role of employee self-perceived status and feedback-seeking climate. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 2018;25:430–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu L, Li F, Leung K, Savani K, Morris MW. When can culturally diverse teams be more creative? The role of leaders’ benevolent paternalism. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:402–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ma Z, Long L, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Lam CK. Why do high-performance human resource practices matter for team creativity? The mediating role of collective efficacy and knowledge sharing. Asia Pac J Manag. 2017;34:565–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Guarino A. A comparison of first and second generation multivariate analyses: canonical correlation analysis and structural equation modeling. Fla J Educ Res. 2004;42:22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sherry A, Henson RK. Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis in personality research: a user-friendly primer. J Pers Assess. 2005;84:37–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hayes AF, Scharkow M. The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: does method really matter? Psychol Sci. 2013;24:1918–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G. rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78:306–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ali A, Wang H, Khan AN. Mechanism to enhance team creative performance through social media: a transactive memory system approach. Comput Human Behav. 2019;91:115–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. George JM. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. J Appl Psychol. 1990;75:107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Baumeister RF, Ainsworth SE, Vohs KD. Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. Behav Brain Sci. 2016;39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Derdowski L, Øgaard T, Marnburg E, Mathisen GE. Creative and innovative behaviours of corporate directors: an elusive role of task-related conflicts. J Manag Gov. 2018;22:1045–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Tjosvold D. Constructive controversy. The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. 2000. p. 65–85.

  40. Moser KS, Dawson JF, West MA. Antecedents of team innovation in health care teams. Creat Innov Manag. 2019;28:72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McAlpine KL. Flexible work and the effect of informal communication on idea generation and innovation. Acad Manag Proc. 2018;2018:15092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hinds PJ, Mortensen M. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ Sci. 2005;16:290–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Du J, Ma E, Lin X. Can proactivity translate to creativity? Examinations at individual and team levels. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2021;98:103034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhu YQ, Gardner DG, Chen HG. Relationships between work team climate, individual motivation, and creativity. Journal of management. 2018;44(5):2094–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Spitzmuller M, Van Dyne L. Proactive and reactive helping: contrasting the positive consequences of different forms of helping. J Organi Behavior. 2013;34(4):560–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bindl UK, Parker SK, Totterdell P, Hagger-Johnson G. Fuel of the self-starter: how mood relates to proactive goal regulation. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97(1):134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Krapez J, Cerne M, Skerlavaj M, Anzengruber J: AMO framework for team innovation: Efficacy beliefs, proactive personalities, supportive supervision. In: Academy of Management Proceedings: 2014: Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510. 2014. p. 15229.

  48. Bowes-Sperry L, Veiga JF, Yanouzas JN. An analysis of managerial helping responses based on social role theory. Group Organ Manag. 1997;22:445–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express our gratitude to the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, for providing financial funding for this study.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. (MOST 107–2511-H-255–008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Hsing-Yuan Liu, Hsiu-Fang Chen & Chin-Yen Han

  2. Department of Nursing, New Taipei Municipal TuCheng Hospital (Built and Operated By Chang Gung Medical Foundation), New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Hsing-Yuan Liu, Hui-Mei Han & Chin-Yen Han

  3. Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Hsing-Yuan Liu

  4. Institute of Creative Design and Management, National Taipei University of Business, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Ding-Hau Huang

  5. Department of Industrial Design, Ming Chi University of Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Ding-Yang Hsu

  6. Department of Gerontology and Health Care Management, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Chen-Hung Chiang

Authors
  1. Hsing-Yuan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui-Mei Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsiu-Fang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chin-Yen Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ding-Hau Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ding-Yang Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chen-Hung Chiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HYL, DYH and CHC conceived and designed the study. HMH, HFC and DHH collected, inputted, and checked the data. HFC and CYH analyzed the data. DYH and CHC draft the manuscript. HYL revised the manuscript, and CHC submitted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ding-Yang Hsu or Chen-Hung Chiang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (IRB number: 201800212B0) before data collection. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

12912_2024_2158_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Supplementary material 1: Table S1. Sample items from the instruments used to measure nursing students’ perceived team interaction behaviors (TIB).

Table S2. Sample items from the instruments used to measure nursing students’ perceived team creativity (TCr).

Table S3. Sample items from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) instruments used to measure nursing students’ individual creativity.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, HY., Han, HM., Chen, HF. et al. Team interaction behaviors correlates with team creativity among nursing students: Canonical correlation and moderation analyses. BMC Nurs 23, 484 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02158-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02158-7

Keywords

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us