Understanding mental workload: from a clarifying concept analysis toward an implementable framework

Abstract

The growing need for mental workload (MWL) optimization on the shop floor yields an impressive increase in theoretical and applied references to the concept of mental workload (Young et al. 2014). However, do we really understand and agree upon what mental workload exactly is? Does it include emotional load? Can we rely upon an explanatory framework? The present account first runs a critical concept analysis on mental workload, based on the Walker and Avant (2011) method. Results show that existing definitions and theoretical accounts arbitrarily include and exclude defining variables and describe these variables on various levels of abstraction, misuse pivotal terms such as mediation and moderation, and do not theoretically explicitate the role of yet repeatedly operationalized emotional load variables such as frustration. We therefore clarify the concept by disentangling MWL into its antecedents, defining attributes and consequences. Next, we derive a clearcut conceptual definition and present a generic explanatory frameworkthe latter extended with insights from Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller 1988; 1994). We conclude with a set of suggestions for future research and practice. Next to contributing to the theoretical clarification of this hallmark concept, the concept analysis and derived explanatory framework, as proposed, can foster solid research practices and support practitioners in contextualizing MWL-assessment and in effectively optimizing MWL.

A Neuroergonomics Approach to Mental Workload, Engagement and Human Performance

“…There are a number of reasons that explain why mental workload is easy to quantify but difficult to operationalize. The absence of a unified framework for human mental workload, its antecedents, processes and measures has generated a highly abstract concept, loosely operationalized and supported by a growing database of inconsistent findings (Van Acker et al, 2018). The absence of a general explanatory model is complicated by the fact that mental workload, like stress and fatigue (Matthews, 2002), is a transactional concept representing an interaction between the capacities of the individual and the specific demands of a particular task.…”

“…But this notion has always been problematic because resources are a general-purpose metaphor with limited explanatory powers (Navon, 1984) that incorporate both cognitive processes (e.g., attention, memory) and energetical constructs (e.g., mental effort) in ways that are difficult to delineate or operationalize. The allegorical basis of resources almost guarantees an abstract level of explanation (Van Acker et al, 2018) that is accompanied by divergent (Matthews et al, 2015), and sometimes contradictory operationalizations (Yeh and Wickens, 1988;Annett, 2002).…”

Private life telepressure and workplace cognitive failure among hospital nurses: The moderating role of mobile phone presence

“…Nurses in middle adulthood appear to be more resistant to the negative effects of their personal mobile than nurses in young adulthood. It is plausible that they behave differently towards communication devices (Vandendriessche & De Marez, 2019) or that their work experience mitigates performance loss (Sturman, 2003).…”

What do subjective workload scales really measure? Operational and representational solutions to divergence of workload measures

“…For example, although it has been argued that workload is conceptually distinct from 'task demands' , 'performance' , as well as 'effort ' (De Waard 1996;Parasuraman et al 2008), the NASA TLX explicitly asks participants to report 'mental demands' (emphasis added), 'performance' and 'effort' . From the literature, it seems that such misuse of workload concepts and definitions are widespread (Van Acker et al 2018).…”