Article

Article title TESTING AS A METHOD OF PROFESSIONAL FORMATION OF A SMALL GROUP OF AGENTS
Authors E.P. Popechitelev
Section SECTION I. ASSESSMENT AND CORRECTION OF THE PERSON OPERATOR
Month, Year 10, 2014 @en
Index UDC 62.316.454.5
DOI
Abstract A large number of applications are impossible without attracting a specialist group with the members solving on a general problem. The involvement of the group in the technical complex implies the additional technical means to control the complex by the group and turn it into a biotechnology system. The above involvement generates an additional problem, namely, a problem of recruitment in the group defined as a small group of agents. The group should act in a coherent manner, in a favorable psychological climate as an adjusted professional tool. The adjustment requires a selection of candidates being a complex task poorly provided by methodological implementation techniques. A small group is suggested being reviewed as a mасrооrgаnism with an overall "reserve" not determined by the sum reserves of all group members. To define this reserve, the factors causing to implement to the professional selection of operators are discussed, the indicators of group status are offered and the method of group testing unveiling the general group opportunities are reviewed. The above parameters For evaluation can be easily evaluated with special test biоteсhniсаl systems.

Download PDF

Keywords Small group of agents; macroorganism; professional selection; indicators of the quality of work; the method group test.
References 1. Tubbs S.L. A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2011, 512 p.
2. Popechitelev E.P. Malaya gruppa operatorov kak makroorganizm v biotekhnicheskoy sisteme [A small group of operators as macro in biotechnological system], Sbornik “Novye tekhnologii i tekhnika v meditsine, biologii i ekologii” [A collection of New technologies and techniques in medicine, biology and ecology]. Makhachkala: DGTUm 2013, Issue 3, pp. 67-86.
3. Wageman, R. Interdependence and Group Effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, Vol. 40 (1), pp. 145-180.
4. Krichevskiy R.L., Dubovskaya E.M. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya maloy gruppy: teoreticheskiy i prikladnoy aspekty [Social psychology of small groups: theoretical and applied aspects]. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2009, 318 p.
5. Mennecke, B.E., Hoffer J.A. & Wynee B.E. The implications of group development and history for group support system theory and practice, Small. Group Research, 1992, Vol. 23 (4), pp. 524-572.
6. Popechitelev E.P. Sistemnyy analiz mediko-biologicheskikh issledovaniy. Staryy Oskol: Izd-vo TNT, 2014, 420 p.
7. Popechitelev E.P. Podklyuchenie k cheloveku tekhnicheskikh ustroystv v biotekhnicheskoy sisteme [The connection to the technical devices in the biotechnical system ], Sistemnyy analiz i upravlenie v biomeditsinskikh sistemakh [System analysis and control in biomedical systems], 2014, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 431-439.
8. Pinto I.R., Marques J. M. & Abrams D. Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, Vol. 99 (1), pp. 107-119.
9. Carron A.V., Brawley L.R.. Cohesion: Conceptual and Measurement Issues, Small. Group Research, 2000, No. 31, pp. 89.
10. Popechitelev E.P., Bolsunov K.N. Biotekhnicheskie sistemy otsenki urovnya gotovnosti k sovmestnoy rabote malykh grupp operatorov [Biotechnical system of assessing the level of
willingness to work together small groups of operators], Izvestiya SPbGETU LETI [Izvestiya Saint-Petersburg State Electrotechnical University], 2010, No. 6, pp. 83-91.

Comments are closed.