How the questionnaire links to factors

The tables below show how the questions in our questionnaires for team members, stakeholders, and supporters link to the various factors in our model. We omitted questions that serve a technical purpose or are designed to reduce response bias. Some questions depend on the team type (Scrum (software), Scrum (non-software), and generic Agile).

License

The Agile Team Effectiveness and Teamwork Quality models and associated scales are licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 by The Lucid Institute for Organizational Science (LIOS, CoC# 98537350), a non-profit that aims to advance the use of scientific insights in organizational change. The foundation permits us to use the models and scales in Columinity, provided they are attributed properly and we make anonymized and aggregated data available to the foundation for continued scientific research. Commercial use by others is not allowed without permission from the foundation.

The Agile Mindset Model and associated scales are licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 by Dr. Karen Eilers and Christiaan Verwijs. They permit us to use the model and scales in Columinity, provided they are attributed properly and we make anonymized and aggregated data available to them for continued scientific research. Commercial use by others is not allowed without permission from the foundation.

Academics are explicitly encouraged to use the scales or derivatives for scientific research, provided they are properly attributed and made available under the same BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

⚠️ Caution: psychometric scales ⚠️

It may be tempting to take a few questions from this survey and use them in your own internal surveys. However, this is risky if you don’t have statistical expertise or an understanding of how psychometric scales are built and validated. Each group of questions we use to measure a topic is a scale, created through a careful, iterative validation process (as explained in this article. Scales work by measuring an underlying concept through multiple questions, then using statistical methods to calculate a score for that concept and check whether the measurement is reliable.

Models

• Agile Team Effectiveness Model
• Teamwork Quality Model
• Agile Mindset

Agile Team Effectiveness Model

Learn more about this model and how to understand it here.

Team Member Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Your Team		Colocation	Are the members of this team generally in the same room?
Your Team		Location	Where is this team based?
Your Team		Team Size	How many members does this team typically have, including supporting roles (i.e. team coach, scrum master, product owner)
Your Team		Iteration Length	How long is a typical iteration (i.e. sprint, timebox) for this team?
Your Team		Agile Framework	Which Agile methodology most closely describes how your team works?
Your Team		Type Of Product	Where are the people that this team works for - like users and customers - mostly based?
Your Team		AI Usage Frequency (beta)	How often does your team typically use artificial intelligence (AI) as part of their work?
Your Team		Team Change	In the past 2 months, what changes in your team have impacted your team's ability to work together effectively?
Your Organization		Organisation Sector	Which sector is this organisation mostly active in?
Your Organization		Organisation Size	What is the size of this organisation?
Your Organization		Scaling Framework	When applicable, what approach does your organization primarily use to coordinate work between multiple Scrum/Agile teams?
Your Organization		Organizational Change	In the past 2 months, what changes in your organisation have impacted your team's ability to work together effectively?
Continuous Improvement	Metric Usage	MU1	This team often inspects metrics to identify process improvements.
Continuous Improvement	Metric Usage	MU2	Decisions about what this team does are often influenced by metrics.
Continuous Improvement	Concern For Quality	Q1	Members of this team have a shared understanding of what quality means to them.
Continuous Improvement	Concern For Quality	Q2	People in this team frequently talk about quality and how to improve it.
Continuous Improvement	Concern For Quality	Q3	This team is always looking for ways to improve quality.
Continuous Improvement	Retrospective Quality	SRPQ1	The retrospectives of this team generally result in at least one useful improvement.
Continuous Improvement	Retrospective Quality	SRPQ2	During retrospectives, this team openly talks about improvements.
Continuous Improvement	Retrospective Quality	SRPQ3	This team uses retrospectives to explore solutions for persistent challenges.
Continuous Improvement	Learning Environment	LE1	In and around this team, people are given time to support learning.
Continuous Improvement	Learning Environment	LE2	In and around this team, people are encouraged to learn (i.e. through compliments, appreciation and other encouragements).
Continuous Improvement	Learning Environment	LE3	In and around this team, people are encouraged to learn new skills, techniques or practices.
Continuous Improvement	Learning Environment	LE4	In and around this team, people see learning as a part of their work.
Continuous Improvement	Psychological Safety	PS1	In and around this team, people give open and honest feedback to each other.
Continuous Improvement	Psychological Safety	PS2	In and around this team, people listen to the others' views before speaking.
Continuous Improvement	Psychological Safety	PS3	In and around this team, whenever people state their view, they also ask what others think.
Continuous Improvement	Team Conflict	RC1	The members of this team often experience moments of friction with each other.
Continuous Improvement	Team Conflict	RC2	Different personalities in this team often clash or disagree with each other.
Continuous Improvement	Team Conflict	RC3	There are often moments of tension between members of this team.
Continuous Improvement	Shared Learning	SL1	This team frequently works with other groups or teams to solve shared problems.
Continuous Improvement	Shared Learning	SL2	Teams in this organization share what they learn with other teams.
Continuous Improvement	Shared Learning	SL3	Members from this team frequently meet with other teams to identify improvements.
Responsiveness	Refinement	RE1	During the iteration, this team usually works on many small items.
Responsiveness	Refinement	RE2	During the iteration, this team spends time to clarify work for the next couple of iterations.
Responsiveness	Refinement	RE3	During the iteration, this team spends time breaking down work for coming iterations.
Responsiveness	Release Automation	RA1 *	The process this team uses to deploy software to production is mostly automated.
Responsiveness	Release Automation	RA2 *	A release to production can generally be performed without manual steps.
Responsiveness	Release Frequency	RF1	For this team, most iterations result in something (i.e. increment, feature, deliverable) that can be released to users.
Responsiveness	Release Frequency	RF2	The majority of iterations of this team result in something (i.e. increment, feature, deliverable) that can be delivered to stakeholders.
Responsiveness	Release Frequency	RF3	For most of its iterations, this team is able to deliver something new (i.e. increment, feature, deliverable) to stakeholders.
Responsiveness	AI Usage (beta)	AI1	Our team uses artificial intelligence (AI) to deliver, deploy or release work more quickly
Responsiveness	AI Usage (beta)	AI2	Our team uses artificial intelligence (AI) to identify areas of improvement for our team.
Responsiveness	AI Usage (beta)	AI3	Artificial intelligence (AI) has improved our ability to work together as a team.
Responsiveness	AI Usage (beta)	AI4	The use of artificial intelligence (AI) allows our team to better focus on what is important to stakeholders.
Responsiveness	AI Usage (beta)	AI5	Management in my organization encourages the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in our daily work.
Team Autonomy	Self-Management	SM1	This team has control over the scheduling of teamwork.
Team Autonomy	Self-Management	SM2	This team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work.
Team Autonomy	Self-Management	SM3	This team is able to choose the way to go about its work.
Team Autonomy	Cross-functionality	CF1	Most people in this team have the ability to solve the problems that come up in their work.
Team Autonomy	Cross-functionality	CF2	Everyone in this team has more than enough training and experience for the kind of work they have to do.
Stakeholder Concern	Shared Team Goals	SG1	This team generally has clear goals for each iteration.
Stakeholder Concern	Shared Team Goals	SG2	At the start of each iteration, this team formulates a clear goal.
Stakeholder Concern	Value Focus	VF1	Everyone in this team is familiar with the vision for the product.
Stakeholder Concern	Value Focus	VF2	The work backlog for this team is prioritized with a longer-term strategy in mind.
Stakeholder Concern	Value Focus	VF3	Our team's decisions about which work to prioritize are guided by a clear strategy or vision.
Stakeholder Concern	Value Focus	VF4	This team has a clear strategy or vision for determining the value of potential work.
Stakeholder Concern	Feedback Gathering Quality	FGC1	This team collects feedback from stakeholders before the end of each iteration.
Stakeholder Concern	Feedback Gathering Quality	FGC2	Before the end of each iteration, stakeholders frequently try out what this team has been working on.
Stakeholder Concern	Feedback Gathering Quality	FGC3	Most iterations result in useful changes to the work backlog of this team.
Stakeholder Concern	Feedback Gathering Quality	FGC4	Feedback from stakeholders frequently results in useful changes to the work backlog of this team.
Stakeholder Concern	Stakeholder Collaboration	SC1	Members of this team frequently meet with users or customers of what this team creates.
Stakeholder Concern	Stakeholder Collaboration	SC2	People from this team often invite or visit people that use what this team works on.
Stakeholder Concern	Stakeholder Collaboration	SC3	People in this team closely collaborate with users, customers and other stakeholders.
Stakeholder Concern	Stakeholder Collaboration	SC4	This team frequently runs experiments or workshops to discover how people (want to) use the product.
Stakeholder Concern	Stakeholder Collaboration	SC5	This team frequently runs experiments or workshops to discover what stakeholders need.
Management Support	Management Support	MS1	People in a management position generally understand why this team uses an Agile approach (i.e. Scrum, XP, LeSS).
Management Support	Management Support	MS2	People in a management position help this team work with Agile (i.e. Scrum, XP, LeSS).
Management Support	Support for Stakeholder Concern	SUPSC1	People in a management position actively support this team to work (more) closely with stakeholders.
Management Support	Support for Stakeholder Concern	SUPSC2	People in a management position help this team to understand why our work is important.
Management Support	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA1	People in a management position encourage this team to make our own choices rather than being told what to do.
Management Support	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA2	People in a management position actively support this team to manage how we do our work.
Management Support	Support for Responsiveness	SUPRES1	People in a management position do what they can to help this team to release more frequently.
Management Support	Support for Responsiveness	SUPRES2	People in a management position remove obstacles that make it harder for this team to release (more) frequently.
Management Support	Support for Continuous Improvement	SUPCI1	People in a management position encourage this team to improve our processes, technologies and work methods.
Management Support	Support for Continuous Improvement	SUPCI2	People in a management position create an environment for this team to learn, experiment and improve.
Outcomes	Scrum Experience	Experience	I consider this team to be very experienced with the work method they use (i.e. Scrum, Agile, Kanban).
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM1	I am proud of the work that I do for this team.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM2	I am enthusiastic about the work that I do for this team.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM3	I find the work that I do for this team full of meaning and purpose.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH1	Stakeholders are generally happy with what this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH2	Stakeholders are generally happy with how fast this team responds to their needs.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH3	Our stakeholders compliment us with the value that we deliver to them.
You		Role	What role best describes what you do in this team? (why we ask this)
You		Working From Home	How often do you work from home?

• Items with * are only relevant to teams that create software.

Stakeholder Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Responsiveness	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES1	I frequently meet or interact with members of this team.
Responsiveness	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES2	I have a good sense of what this team is working on.
Responsiveness	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES3	When I have an idea or suggestion, members of the team are available to listen to me.
Responsiveness	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES4	The team frequently asks for my feedback, ideas or thoughts.
Responsiveness	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF1	The frequency of new releases is good enough for my needs.
Responsiveness	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF2	I am satisfied with how often this team delivers outcomes (i.e. releases, versions & other work).
Responsiveness	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF3	The frequency with which this team delivers outcomes (i.e. releases, versions & other work) is good enough for my needs.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ1	What this team delivers is of high quality.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ2	I am satisfied with the quality of what this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ3	When the team delivers work, it is usually free of serious issues (bugs, errors, mistakes).
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Team Value	SHTV1	I am satisfied with the value that this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Team Value	SHTV2	I am happy with the value that this team delivers every iteration.
You		Stakeholder Type	What best describes your stake in what this team delivers?

Supporter Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Management Support	Supporting Leadership	SUPL1	It is important for me to create a sense of community among employees.
Management Support	Supporting Leadership	SUPL2	I spend time to form quality relationships with this team.
Management Support	Supporting Leadership	SUPL3	I frequently interact with this team to learn where they need my support.
Management Support	Benefits Of Agile	BENF1	Agile methodologies generally allow teams to deliver more value to stakeholders compared to plan-based methodologies.
Management Support	Benefits Of Agile	BENF2	Agile methodologies generally allow teams to adapt more quickly to changes compared to plan-based methodologies.
Management Support	Benefits Of Agile	BENF3	Compared to plan-based methodologies, Agile methodologies allow teams to reduce the risk of building the wrong product.
Management Support	Support for Stakeholder Concern	SUPSC1L	I actively support this team to work (more) closely with stakeholders.
Management Support	Support for Stakeholder Concern	SUPSC2L	I make sure that this team knows why their work is important.
Management Support	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA1L	I encourage this team to make their own choices rather than being told what to do.
Management Support	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA2L	I actively support this team to manage how they do their work.
Management Support	Support for Responsiveness	SUPRES1L	I do what I can to help this team to release more frequently.
Management Support	Support for Responsiveness	SUPRES2L	I remove obstacles that make it hard for this team to release (more) frequently.
Management Support	Support for Continuous Improvement	SUPCI1L	I encourage this team to improve their processes, technologies and work methods.
Management Support	Support for Continuous Improvement	SUPCI2L	I create an environment for this team where they can learn, experiment and improve.
You		SupporterRole	What role best describes your supporting role towards this team?
You		SpanOfControl	How many teams are you supporting?

Attribution

Continuous Improvement

• Scale for "Concern for Quality": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Retrospective Quality": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Learning Environment": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from a selection items of "Continuous Learning Opportunities"-scale by Watkins & Marsick (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in developing human resources 5.2 (2003): 132-151.
• Scale for "Psychological Safety": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from a selection items of "Inquiry & Dialogue"-scale by Watkins & Marsick (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in developing human resources 5.2 (2003): 132-151.
• Scale for "Team Conflict": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from a selection of items for "Task Conflict" and "Relational Conflict" by Jehn (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly (1995): 256-282.
• Scale for "Shared learning": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Metric Usage": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Quality": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.

Team Autonomy

• Scale for "Self-Management": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from a selection of items from Langfred (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of management 31.4 (2005): 513-529.
• Scale for "Cross-functionality" (CF1-2): Extended and adapted from Edmondson (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly 44.2 (1999): 350-383.

Stakeholder Concern

• Scale for "Shared Team Goals": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from a selection of items from Van der Hoek, Groeneveld & Kuipers (2016). Goal setting in teams: Goal clarity and team performance in the public sector. Review of public personnel administration 38.4 (2018): 472-493.
• Scale for "Feedback Gathering Quality": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Stakeholder Collaboration": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Value Focus": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Responsiveness": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.

Responsiveness

• Scale for "Release Automation": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Refinement": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Release Frequency": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Release Frequency": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.
• Scale for "AI Usage": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2025).

Management Support

• Scale for "Experienced Management Support": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Supporting Leadership": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Benefits of Agile": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Team Autonomy": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Stakeholder Concern": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Continuous Improvement": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Responsiveness": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.

Team Effectiveness

• Scale for "Team Morale": Revalidated and adapted from selection of items from the "Unit Morale"-scale in Van Boxmeer et al (2007), based on the UWES scale by Schaufeli & Bakker (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement 66.4 (2006): 701-716.
• Scale for "Stakeholder Satisfaction": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Team Value": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.

Teamwork Quality Model

Learn more about this model and how to understand it here.

Team Member Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Your team		Colocation	Are the members of this team generally in the same room?
Your team		Location	Where is this team based?
Your team		Team Size Finegrained	How many members are in this team?
Your team		Team Focus	In a typical week, how many teams do you perform work for (i.e. you join their meetings or perform tasks for them)?
Your team		Team Longevity	How long have the members of this team worked together as a team?
Your team		Team Stability	In a normal situation, how often do new members join, or existing members leave, your current team?
Your team		Team Work Type	What kind of work best describes what your team does most of the time?
Your team		Team Change	In the past 2 months, what changes in your team have impacted your team's ability to work together effectively?
Your team		Metateam Size	How large is the metateam from which teams are drawn in your organization?
Your Team		AI Usage Frequency (beta)	How often does your team typically use artificial intelligence (AI) as part of their work?
Your organization		Organisation Sector	Which sector is this organisation mostly active in?
Your organization		Organisation Size	What is the size of this organisation?
Your organization		Organizational Change	In the past 2 months, what changes in your organisation have impacted your team's ability to work together effectively?
Support structures	Dynamic Reteaming	DYNAMICRETEAMING1	Teams in our organization generally remain together for a year or more.
Support structures	Dynamic Reteaming	DYNAMICRETEAMING2	In our organizaton, teams change frequently.
Support structures	Dynamic Reteaming	DYNAMICRETEAMING4	The members of a team mostly remain with that team for a long time.
Support structures	Team Composition Autonomy	TEAMCOMPOSITIONAUTONOMY1	Team members have a say over who is part of a (new) team.
Support structures	Team Composition Autonomy	TEAMCOMPOSITIONAUTONOMY2	When a new team is formed, the preferences of potential members are considered.
Support structures	Team Composition Autonomy	TEAMCOMPOSITIONAUTONOMY3	Members are involved in the decision over who is in a team.
Support structures	Dynamic Reteaming Support	DYNAMICRETEAMINGSUPPORT1	This organization invests in the formation of new teams (e.g. teambuilding, setting up work agreements).
Support structures	Dynamic Reteaming Support	DYNAMICRETEAMINGSUPPORT2	Our organization trains people in skills that support teamwork (e.g. communication, conflict navigation, collaboration).
Support structures	Dynamic Reteaming Support	DYNAMICRETEAMINGSUPPORT4	This organization provides support structures for teams to work more effectively (e.g. coaching, teamwork tools).
Support structures	Cross-Functionality / Skill	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYSKILL1	The members of this team have the skills needed to overcome the issues they face in their work.
Support structures	Cross-Functionality / Skill	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYSKILL2	Everyone on this team has enough training and/or experience for the work they do.
Support structures	Cross-Functionality / Skill	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYSKILL4	This team has all the skills it needs to achieve its goals.
Support structures	Cross-Functionality / Pooling	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYPOOLING1	The members of this team have a clear understanding of each other's skills and expertise.
Support structures	Cross-Functionality / Pooling	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYPOOLING2	Within this team, members know how to effectively combine their skills to achieve team goals.
Support structures	Cross-Functionality / Pooling	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYPOOLING3	There is a high level of coordination and integration of skills within the team.
Support structures	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA1	People in a management position encourage this team to make our own choices rather than being told what to do.
Support structures	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA2	People in a management position actively support this team to manage how we do our work.
Support structures	AI Usage (beta)	AI1	Our team uses artificial intelligence (AI) to deliver, deploy or release work more quickly
Support structures	AI Usage (beta)	AI2	Our team uses artificial intelligence (AI) to identify areas of improvement for our team.
Support structures	AI Usage (beta)	AI3	Artificial intelligence (AI) has improved our ability to work together as a team.
Support structures	AI Usage (beta)	AI4	The use of artificial intelligence (AI) allows our team to better focus on what is important to stakeholders.
Support structures	AI Usage (beta)	AI5	Management in my organization encourages the use of
Teamwork	Task Interdependance	TASKINTERDEPENDENCE2	The work done by members of this team depends on the progress of other members.
Teamwork	Task Interdependance	TASKINTERDEPENDENCE3	Other members of my team depend on the work I do to perform their tasks.
Teamwork	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY4	In this team, it is easy for members to bring up concerns.
Teamwork	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY6	Members of this team are understanding when someone makes a mistake.
Teamwork	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY8	In this team, it is easy to give open and honest feedback to each other.
Teamwork	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY9	Members of this team make an effort to listen to each others' views.
Teamwork	Team Conflict	RC1	The members of this team often experience moments of friction with each other.
Teamwork	Team Conflict	RC2	Different personalities in this team often clash or disagree with each other.
Teamwork	Team Conflict	RC3	There are often moments of tension between members of this team.
Teamwork	Work Focus	WORKDISRUPTIONS1	I am frequently interrupted in my work for this team by other issues.
Teamwork	Work Focus	WORKDISRUPTIONS4	I struggle to concentrate on tasks for this team due to disruptions (questions, meetings, emails, etc).
Teamwork	Work Focus	WORKDISRUPTIONS5	Getting distracted from the work I do for this team is a common occurrence.
Teamwork	Work Focus	WORKFOCUS1	I am able to focus on high-priority tasks.
Teamwork	Work Focus	WORKFOCUS2	On most workdays, I can maintain focus on my tasks.
Teamwork	Work Focus	WORKFOCUS5	On most workdays, I am able to sustain attention on my tasks without difficulty.
Teamwork	Task Cohesion	TASKCOHESION1	Our team is united in trying to reach its performance goals.
Teamwork	Task Cohesion	TASKCOHESION2	I’m happy with my team’s level of commitment to the task.
Teamwork	Task Cohesion	TASKCOHESION3	Our team members have similar ambitions for the performance of our team.
Teamwork	Team Goal Commitment	TEAMGOALCOMMITMENT1	I am committed to pursuing the team’s goal.
Teamwork	Team Goal Commitment	TEAMGOALCOMMITMENT2	I think it is important to reach the team’s goal.
Teamwork	Team Goal Commitment	TEAMGOALCOMMITMENT3	I really care about achieving the team’s goal.
Teamwork	Social Identification	SOCIALIDENTIFICATION1	I feel committed to my team.
Teamwork	Social Identification	SOCIALIDENTIFICATION2	I am glad to be on this team.
Teamwork	Social Identification	SOCIALIDENTIFICATION3	I identify with this team.
Teamwork	Social Cohesion	SOCIALCOHESION1	Our team celebrates personal milestones (e.g. birthdays, child birth, weddings, etc).
Teamwork	Social Cohesion	SOCIALCOHESION2	This team often engages in social activities (e.g. teambuilding, social outings, games).
Teamwork	Social Cohesion	SOCIALCOHESION3	Our team celebrates individual and collective achievements together.
Teamwork	Social Cohesion	SOCIALCOHESION4	Team members frequently undertake social activities together (e.g. getting coffee, lunch, friday drinks).
Outcomes	Team Performance	TEAMPERFORMANCE1	This team achieves its assigned performance goals.
Outcomes	Team Performance	TEAMPERFORMANCE2	This team produces quality work.
Outcomes	Team Performance	TEAMPERFORMANCE3	This team is productive.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM1	I am proud of the work that I do for this team.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM2	I am enthusiastic about the work that I do for this team.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM3	I find the work that I do for this team full of meaning and purpose.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH1	Stakeholders are generally happy with what this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH2	Stakeholders are generally happy with how fast this team responds to their needs.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH3	Our stakeholders compliment us with the value that we deliver to them.
You		Seniority	How long is your experience in your current role (or one similar to it)?
You		Age Group	What is your age? (why we ask this)
You		Role	What role best describes what you do in this team? (why we ask this)
You	Personal Values: Self-Direction	SELFDIRECTION1	It is important for me to think up new ideas.
You	Personal Values: Self-Direction	SELFDIRECTION2	I like to do things in my own way.
You	Personal Values: Self-Direction	SELFDIRECTION3	It is very important for me to be able to make my own decisions about what I do.
You	Personal Values: Self-Direction	SELFDIRECTION4	I want to minimize my dependencies on other people.
You	Personal Values: Achievement	ACHIEVEMENT1	It's very important for me to be able to show my abilities.
You	Personal Values: Achievement	ACHIEVEMENT2	I like it when people admire what I do.
You	Personal Values: Achievement	ACHIEVEMENT4	I hope people will recognize my achievements.

Stakeholder Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ1	What this team delivers is of high quality.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ2	I am satisfied with the quality of what this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ3	When the team delivers work, it is usually free of serious issues (bugs, errors, mistakes).
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Team Value	SHTV1	I am satisfied with the value that this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Team Value	SHTV2	I am happy with the value that this team delivers every iteration.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES1	I frequently meet or interact with members of this team.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES2	I have a good sense of what this team is working on.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES3	When I have an idea or suggestion, members of the team are available to listen to me.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES4	The team frequently asks for my feedback, ideas or thoughts.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF1	The frequency of new releases is good enough for my needs.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF2	I am satisfied with how often this team delivers outcomes (i.e. releases, versions & other work).
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF3	The frequency with which this team delivers outcomes (i.e. releases, versions & other work) is good enough for my needs.
You
You		Stakeholder Type	What best describes your stake in what this team delivers?

Supporter Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Support structures	Supporting Leadership	SUPL1	It is important for me to create a sense of community among employees.
Support structures	Supporting Leadership	SUPL2	I spend time to form quality relationships with this team.
Support structures	Supporting Leadership	SUPL3	I frequently interact with this team to learn where they need my support.
Support structures	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA1L	I encourage this team to make their own choices rather than being told what to do.
Support structures	Support for Team Autonomy	SUPTA2L	I actively support this team to manage how they do their work.
You		SupporterRole	What role best describes your supporting role towards this team?
You		SpanOfControl	How many teams are you supporting?

Attribution

Support Structures

• Scale for "Team Composition Autonomy": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Dynamic Reteaming Support": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Cross-Functionality Skill": Revalidated and adapted two items from "Team Composition"-scale by Edmondson (1999). We improved language and wording based on feedback and validation, and added more questions.
• Scale for "Cross-Functionality Pooling": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Supporting Leadership": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Team Autonomy": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "AI Usage": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2025).

Teamwork Quality

• Scale for "Psychological Safety": Inspired by Schein (1992) and operationalization by Edmondson (1999). Extended and improved based on feedback from teams and our own validation. We included three adapted items of the "Continuous Learning Opportunities"-scale by Watkins & Marsick (2003) to assess convergent validity.
• Scale for "Task Cohesion": Revalidated and adapted selection of items from "Task Cohesion"-scale by Carless & De Paola (2000), which is based on Widemeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1985). The Measurement of Cohesion in Work Teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71-88 doi:10.1177/104649640003100104
• Scale for "Social Cohesion": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Team Goal Commitment": Revalidated and adapted selection of items from "Team Goal Commitment"-scale by Klein et. al. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 85.1 (2001): 32-55.
• Scale for "Social Identification": Revalidated and adapted selection of items from "Social Identification"-scale by Doosje, Ellemers & Spears (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.
• Scale for "Task Interdependence": Revalidated and adapted selection of items from "Task Interdependence"-scale by Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993). Relations Between Work Group Characteristics And Effectiveness: Implications For Designing Effective Work Groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823-847. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x
• Scale for "Work Focus": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Team Conflict": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from selection of items for "Task Conflict" and "Relational Conflict" by Jehn (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly (1995): 256-282.

Team Effectiveness

• Scale for "Team Performance": Revalidated and adapted from selection of items from "Team Performance"-scale by Aube and Rousseau (1995). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 9.3 (2005): 189.
• Scale for "Team Morale": Revalidated and adapted from selection of items from the "Unit Morale"-scale in Van Boxmeer et al (2007), based on the UWES scale by Schaufeli & Bakker (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement 66.4 (2006): 701-716.
• Scale for "Stakeholder Satisfaction": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Team Value": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Release Frequency": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Responsiveness": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Quality": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.

Agile Mindset Model (Beta)

Learn more about this model and how to understand it here.

Team Member Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Your team		Colocation	Are the members of this team generally in the same room?
Your team		Team Size Finegrained	How many members are in this team?
Your team		Team Longevity	How long have the members of this team worked together as a team?
Your team		Team Stability	In a normal situation, how often do new members join, or existing members leave, your current team?
Your team		Team Work Type	What kind of work best describes what your team does most of the time?
Your team		Team Change	In the past 2 months, what changes in your team have impacted your team's ability to work together effectively?
Your Team		AI Usage Frequency (beta)	How often does your team typically use artificial intelligence (AI) as part of their work?
Your team		Location	Where is this team based?
Your organization		Organisation Sector	Which sector is this organisation mostly active in?
Your organization		Organisation Size	What is the size of this organisation?
Your organization		Organizational Change	In the past 2 months, what changes in your organisation have impacted your team's ability to work together effectively?
Knowledge impulses	Shared Learning	SL1	This team frequently works with other groups or teams to solve shared problems.
Knowledge impulses	Shared Learning	SL2	Teams in this organization share what they learn with other teams.
Knowledge impulses	Shared Learning	SL3	Members from this team frequently meet with other teams to identify improvements.
Knowledge impulses	Learning Opportunities	LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES1	In my organization, it is is encouraged to attend professional conferences or events.
Knowledge impulses	Learning Opportunities	LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES2	I have access to a variety of learning resources (e.g. online courses, workshops, literature, meet-ups) in this organization.
Knowledge impulses	Learning Opportunities	LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES3	My organization frequently organizes events or meetings to promote informal knowledge transfer.
Knowledge impulses	Learning Opportunities	LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES4	My organization regularly provides opportunities for professional development
Knowledge impulses	Learning Opportunities	LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES5	My organization provides platforms (e.g., internal forums, knowledge bases, wikis, blogs) for employees to share and access knowledge.
Knowledge impulses	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY4	In this team, it is easy for members to bring up concerns.
Knowledge impulses	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY6	Members of this team are understanding when someone makes a mistake.
Knowledge impulses	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY8	In this team, it is easy to give open and honest feedback to each other.
Knowledge impulses	Psychological Safety	PSYCHOLOGICALSAFETY9	Members of this team make an effort to listen to each others' views.
Work design	Cross-Functionality	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYSKILL1	The members of this team have the skills needed to overcome the issues they face in their work.
Work design	Cross-Functionality	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYSKILL2	Everyone on this team has enough training and/or experience for the work they do.
Work design	Cross-Functionality	CROSSFUNCTIONALITYSKILL4	This team has all the skills it needs to achieve its goals.
Work design	Self Management	SM1	This team has control over the scheduling of teamwork.
Work design	Self Management	SM2	This team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work.
Work design	Self Management	SM3	This team is able to choose the way to go about its work.
Work design	Shared Goals	SG1	This team generally has clear goals for each iteration.
Work design	Shared Goals	SG2	At the start of each iteration, this team formulates a clear goal.
Work design	Value Focus	VF1	Everyone in this team is familiar with the vision for the product.
Work design	Value Focus	VF2	The work backlog for this team is prioritized with a longer-term strategy in mind.
Work design	Value Focus	VF3	Our team's decisions about which work to prioritize are guided by a clear strategy or vision.
Work design	Value Focus	VF4	This team has a clear strategy or vision for determining the value of potential work.
Work design	AI Usage (beta)	AI1	Our team uses artificial intelligence (AI) to deliver, deploy or release work more quickly
Work design	AI Usage (beta)	AI2	Our team uses artificial intelligence (AI) to identify areas of improvement for our team.
Work design	AI Usage (beta)	AI3	Artificial intelligence (AI) has improved our ability to work together as a team.
Work design	AI Usage (beta)	AI4	The use of artificial intelligence (AI) allows our team to better focus on what is important to stakeholders.
Work design	AI Usage (beta)	AI5	Management in my organization encourages the use of
Leadership	Experienced management support	MS1	People in a management position generally understand why this team uses an Agile approach (i.e. Scrum, XP, LeSS).
Leadership	Experienced management support	MS2	People in a management position help this team work with Agile (i.e. Scrum, XP, LeSS).
Leadership	Support for continuous improvement	SUPCI1	People in a management position encourage this team to improve our processes, technologies and work methods.
Leadership	Support for continuous improvement	SUPCI2	People in a management position create an environment for this team to learn, experiment and improve.
Leadership	Support for responsiveness	SUPRES1	People in a management position do what they can to help this team to release more frequently.
Leadership	Support for responsiveness	SUPRES2	People in a management position remove obstacles that make it harder for this team to release (more) frequently.
Leadership	Support for stakeholder collaboration	SUPSC1	People in a management position actively support this team to work (more) closely with stakeholders.
Leadership	Support for stakeholder collaboration	SUPSC2	People in a management position help this team to understand why our work is important.
Mindset	Customer Co-creation	CUSTOMERCOCREATION1	It is important to our team that we involve internal or external customers from the start.
Mindset	Customer Co-creation	CUSTOMERCOCREATION2	Our team strives to understand what internal or external customers need by interacting with them directly.
Mindset	Customer Co-creation	CUSTOMERCOCREATION3	Members in my team find it essential to interact with internal or external customers frequently.
Mindset	Customer Co-creation	CUSTOMERCOCREATION4	It is important for our team to evaluate our work with internal or external customers.
Mindset	Customer Co-creation	CUSTOMERCOCREATION6	In this team, we see feedback from internal / external customers as essential to be successful.
Mindset	Collaborative Exchange	COLLABORATIVEEXCHANGE3	Our team members like to share their thoughts when someone in the team seeks advice.
Mindset	Collaborative Exchange	COLLABORATIVEEXCHANGE4	Members in our team find it valuable to ask each other for advice on work problems.
Mindset	Collaborative Exchange	COLLABORATIVEEXCHANGE5	As a team, we like to seek input from each other when tackling complex issues.
Mindset	Collaborative Exchange	COLLABORATIVEEXCHANGE6	Our team actively build on each other’s suggestions when solving problems.
Mindset	Collaborative Exchange	COLLABORATIVEEXCHANGE7	Our team encourages open dialogue rather than keeping ideas to ourselves.
Mindset	Collaborative Exchange	COLLABORATIVEEXCHANGE8	In this team, we like to encourage each other to bring up work-related issues
Mindset	Learning Spirit	LEARNINGSPIRIT3	It is important to our team to learn lessons from new problems we face at work.
Mindset	Learning Spirit	LEARNINGSPIRIT4	Members of this team like to explore new ways to better complete our work.
Mindset	Learning Spirit	LEARNINGSPIRIT5	When our team runs into difficulties at work, we like to search for different ways to overcome them.
Mindset	Learning Spirit	LEARNINGSPIRIT6	Our team wants to reflect on past work to improve how we approach future tasks.
Mindset	Learning Spirit	LEARNINGSPIRIT7	Members of this team are open to insights from other areas (e.g. disciplines, domains, departments) to enhance our teamwork.
Mindset	Empowered Self-Guidance	EMPOWEREDSELFGUIDANCE1	We want to be accountable for the work we do as a team.
Mindset	Empowered Self-Guidance	EMPOWEREDSELFGUIDANCE4	It is important for our team to contribute to setting goals for the work we do.
Mindset	Empowered Self-Guidance	EMPOWEREDSELFGUIDANCE5	Our team likes to take initiative in organizing tasks and responsibilities.
Mindset	Empowered Self-Guidance	EMPOWEREDSELFGUIDANCE6	Members of our team want to take responsibility for maintaining high quality in our work.
Mindset	Empowered Self-Guidance	EMPOWEREDSELFGUIDANCE7	Members of this team like to take initiative to solve problems without waiting to be told what to do.
Outcomes	Team Performance	TEAMPERFORMANCE1	This team achieves its assigned performance goals.
Outcomes	Team Performance	TEAMPERFORMANCE2	This team produces quality work.
Outcomes	Team Performance	TEAMPERFORMANCE3	This team is productive.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM1	I am proud of the work that I do for this team.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM2	I am enthusiastic about the work that I do for this team.
Outcomes	Team Morale	TM3	I find the work that I do for this team full of meaning and purpose.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH1	Stakeholders are generally happy with what this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH2	Stakeholders are generally happy with how fast this team responds to their needs.
Outcomes	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SH3	Our stakeholders compliment us with the value that we deliver to them.
You		Age Group	What is your age? (why we ask this)
You		Role	What role best describes what you do in this team? (why we ask this)

Stakeholder Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ1	What this team delivers is of high quality.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ2	I am satisfied with the quality of what this team delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Quality	SHQ3	When the team delivers work, it is usually free of serious issues (bugs, errors, mistakes).
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Team Value	SHTV1	I am satisfied with the value that this teams delivers.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Team Value	SHTV2	I am happy with the value that this team delivers every iteration.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES1	I frequently meet or interact with members of this team.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES2	I have a good sense of what this team is working on.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES3	When I have an idea or suggestion, members of the team are available to listen to me.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Responsiveness	SHRES4	The team frequently asks for my feedback, ideas or thoughts.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF1	The frequency of new releases is good enough for my needs.
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF2	I am satisfied with how often this team delivers outcomes (i.e. releases, versions & other work).
Outcomes	Stakeholders: Release Frequency	SHRF3	The frequency with which this team delivers outcomes (i.e. releases, versions & other work) is good enough for my needs.
You		Stakeholder Type	What best describes your stake in what this team delivers?

Supporter Questionnaire

Core Factor	Sub Factor	Question Name	Question Label
Leadership	Support for continuous improvement	SUPCI1L	I encourage this team to improve their processes, technologies and work methods.
Leadership	Support for continuous improvement	SUPCI2L	I create an environment for this team where they can learn, experiment and improve.
Leadership	Support for responsiveness	SUPRES1L	I do what I can to help this team to release more frequently.
Leadership	Support for responsiveness	SUPRES2L	I remove obstacles that make it hard for this team to release (more) frequently.
Leadership	Support for stakeholder collaboration	SUPSC1L	I actively support this team to work (more) closely with stakeholders.
Leadership	Support for stakeholder collaboration	SUPSC2L	I make sure that this team knows why their work is important.
Leadership	Supporting leadership	SUPL1	It is important for me to create a sense of community among employees.
Leadership	Supporting leadership	SUPL2	I spend time to form quality relationships with this team.
Leadership	Supporting leadership	SUPL3	I frequently interact with this team to learn where they need my support.
You		SupporterRole	What role best describes your supporting role towards this team?
You		SpanOfControl	How many teams are you supporting?

Knowledge Impulses

• Scale for "Shared learning": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Psychological Safety": Inspired by Schein (1992) and operationalization by Edmondson (1999). Extended and improved based on feedback from teams and our own validation. We included three adapted items of the "Continuous Learning Opportunities"-scale by Watkins & Marsick (2003) to assess convergent validity.
• Scale for "Learning Opportunities": Eilers & Verwijs (2025). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.

Work Design

• Scale for "Cross-Functionality Skill": Revalidated and adapted two items from "Team Composition"-scale by Edmondson (1999). We improved language and wording based on feedback and validation, and added more questions.
• Scale for "Self-Management": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from Langfred (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of management 31.4 (2005): 513-529.
• Scale for "Shared Goals": Revalidated and adapted to Agile teams from Van der Hoek, Groeneveld & Kuipers (2016). Goal setting in teams: Goal clarity and team performance in the public sector. Review of public personnel administration 38.4 (2018): 472-493.
• Scale for "Value Focus": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "AI Usage": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2025).

Leadership

• Scale for "Experienced Management Support": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Supporting Leadership": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Team Autonomy": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Stakeholder Concern": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Continuous Improvement": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.
• Scale for "Support for Responsiveness": Verwijs (2024). Not yet published in a peer-reviewed study.

Agile Mindset

• Scale for "Customer Co-Creation": Eilers, K., Peters, C., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022), adapted by Eilers & Verwijs (2025)
• Scale for "Collaborative Exchange": Eilers, K., Peters, C., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022), adapted by Eilers & Verwijs (2025)
• Scale for "Learning Spirit": Eilers, K., Peters, C., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022), adapted by Eilers & Verwijs (2025)
• Scale for "Empowered Self-Guidance": Eilers, K., Peters, C., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022), adapted by Eilers & Verwijs (2025)

Team Effectiveness

• Scale for "Team Performance": Revalidated and adapted from selection of items from "Team Performance"-scale by Aube and Rousseau (1995). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 9.3 (2005): 189.
• Scale for "Team Morale": Revalidated and adapted from selection of items from the "Unit Morale"-scale in Van Boxmeer et al (2007), based on the UWES scale by Schaufeli & Bakker (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement 66.4 (2006): 701-716.
• Scale for "Stakeholder Satisfaction": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2023). A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(3), 1-51.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Team Value": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Release Frequency": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Responsiveness": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.
• Scale for "Stakeholders: Quality": Verwijs, C., & Russo, D. (2024). Do Agile scaling approaches make a difference? an empirical comparison of team effectiveness across popular scaling approaches. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(4), 75.