Working memory capacity and errors following interruptions.

Abstract

Errors following interruptions are problematic in many environments. Previous interruption research has focused on mitigation methods (e.g., alerts, cues) to reduce the deleterious effects of interruptions. However, little research has examined whether any individual difference measures can be used to predict how many errors individuals are likely to make following interruptions. The goal for the present research was to determine whether individual differences in working memory capacity, a measure of interference management (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2002), relate to errors following interruptions. Participants completed a procedural interruption task and multiple measures of working memory capacity. We found a moderate negative relationship (r = −.35) between a composite variable of working memory capacity and the number of errors made following interruptions. In safety-critical environments, it may be best to assign individuals with higher working memory capacity to tasks where errors may have dire outcomes.

Characteristics of interruptions during medication administration: An integrative review of direct observational studies

“…Interruptions have been found through direct observational studies to be associated with an increase in frequency (Scott‐Cawiezell et al., ; Westbrook et al., ) and severity of MAEs (Westbrook et al., ). These findings are consistent with the cognitive science literature which reports higher error rates after a task switch (Altmann, Trafton, & Hambrick, ; Foroughi, Malihi, & Boehm‐Davis, ; Li, Blandford, Cairns, & Young, ; Monsell, ; Trafton, Altmann, & Ratwani, ).…”

The role of attention control in complex real-world tasks

“…An important topic in this area is what role cognition has in both susceptibility to interruptions and ability to recover after interruptions occur. Attention control has been linked to resistance to interruption in work environments in a few studies (e.g., Tams et al, 2015 and a preregistered study, Mirhoseini et al, 2020), but more research has been devoted to the role of working memory capacity (e.g., Foroughi, Barragán, & Boehm-Davis, 2016a;Foroughi, Malihi, & Boehm-Davis, 2016b;Foroughi, Werner, et al, 2016c;T. Gillie & Broadbent, 1989;Westbrook et al, 2018).…”

Pardon the Interruption: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda for Research on Work Interruptions

“…This dimension reflects whether participants’ assessments of an interruption are captured. An objective approach assumes an event that halts ongoing work to be interruptive by its very occurrence and does not incorporate participant assessments (e.g., Foroughi, Malihi, & Boehm-Davis, 2016; Monk & Kidd, 2008). Put differently, the interruptive nature of an event is decided by the researcher and not the participant; thus, it is necessary that researchers are able to clearly observe the work interruptions.…”