Performance and usability evaluation of an automated task management concept prototype design

Hildebrand, Gregory A.; Pharmer, James A.; Weaver, Melissa

doi:10.1037/e576902012-003

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When correlated with task and team events, such as instances of communication or backup behavior, Task Manager profiles may provide further insight into the sources of taskwork and teamwork in a team environment. Collectively, the previously described methods of team workload assessment rely on modified individual measures of workload, which ; T-TLX = Team Task Load Index (Hildebrand et al, 2003); TWA = Team Workload Assessment Measure (Lin et al, 2011); SWAT = subjective workload assessment technique (Reid & Nygren, 1988); C3 + C2 Scale = Communication, Coordination, Cooperation, Plus Command and Control Scale (Yang et al, 2010). presents several difficulties.…”

Section: Subjective Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Hildebrand, Pharmer, and Weaver (2003;also see Pharmer, Cropper, McKneely, & Williams, 2004) assessed team workload using a modified TLX that combined the standard six rating scales of the NASA-TLX with an additional four subscales. The supplementary items addressed communication demand, monitoring demand, control demand, and coordination demand and were scored on a scale that ranged from 1 (low) to 100 (high; also see, e.g., Knott, Bolia, Nelson, & Galster, 2006, for a further modification of this team measure).…”

Section: Subjective Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptualization and Measurement of Team Workload

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this article is to present and expand on current theories and measurement techniques for assessing team workload.Background: To date, little research has been conducted on the workload experienced by teams. A validated theory describing team workload, which includes an account of its relation to individual workload, has not been articulated.Method: The authors review several theoretical approaches to team workload. Within the team research literature, attempts to evaluate team workload have typically relied on measures of individual workload. This assumes that such measures retain their validity at the team level of measurement, but empirical research suggests that this method may lack sensitivity to the drivers of team workload.Results: On the basis of these reviews, the authors advance suggestions concerning a comprehensive theory of team workload and methods for assessing it in team settings. The approaches reviewed include subjective, performance, physiological, and strategy shift measures. Theoretical and statistical difficulties associated with aggregating individual-level workload responses to a team-level measure are discussed.Conclusion: Conception and measurement of team workload have not significantly matured alongside developments in individual workload.Application: Team workload remains a complex research area without simple measurement solutions, but as a research domain it remains open for contributions from interested and enterprising researchers.

show abstract