Group model building (GMB) approaches have been shown to improve participants' understanding of complexity by shifting and aligning individuals' mental models of the interconnections within complex systems. However, reviews of GMB literature have identified knowledge gaps for assessing the efficacy of GMB activities. To address these gaps, these studies recommend assessing multiple cases, shifting from controlled to applied settings, and reporting on objective measures. We address each of these items by comparing the outputs of multiple community‐based GMB workshops to participants' mental models elicited through pre‐workshop interviews. Using purposive text analysis, we developed causal loop diagrams for comparison to a group workshop model. Through a quantitative analysis, we find that individuals convened in GMB workshops have greater alignment on factors, causal links, and feedback. We believe these contributions can help other GMB practitioners better assess the efficacy of their activities with more rigor and detail.

中文翻译：

---

通过有针对性的文本分析，在应用环境中评估小组模型构建研讨会的功效

小组模型构建（GMB）方法已被证明可以通过在复杂系统中转移和调整个人互连的心理模型来提高参与者对复杂性的理解。然而，对GMB文献的评论已经发现了评估GMB活动效力的知识差距。为了解决这些差距，这些研究建议评估多个案例，从受控设置转变为应用设置，并报告客观措施。我们通过将多个基于社区的GMB研讨会的输出与通过车间前访谈得出的参与者的心理模型进行比较，来解决所有这些问题。使用有目的的文本分析，我们开发了因果回路图以与小组研讨会模型进行比较。通过定量分析 我们发现，在GMB研讨会上召集的个人在因素，因果联系和反馈方面具有更大的一致性。我们相信，这些贡献可以帮助其他GMB从业者更严格，更详细地评估其活动的有效性。