Workload Prediction, Diagnosis, and Continuing Challenges

  • Donald L. Parks
  • George P. BoucekJr.

Abstract

Many methods and models have evolved in recent years with the objective to improve our ability to predict and measure workload, based on the desire to assure operators can perform all tasks as required. With this evolution has come a better recognition of differences in need, language has become more precisely defined and there now is less confusion of concepts and purpose than 10 years ago. There is now a wide assortment of workload “tools” with widely varying degrees of complexity. Additionally, more attention is being given to whether the tools measure what they purport to measure, and whether the variety of tools now proposed actually do measure the same thing.

Keywords

Secondary Task Mental Workload Cognitive Workload Workload Level Workload Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auffret, R. (ed.), 1977, Studies on Pilot Workload, AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 217, Papers presented at the Aerospace Medical Panel Specialists’ Meeting, Koln, West Germany, April.Google Scholar
  2. Boucek, G. P., Jr., Sandry-Garza, D. L., and Logan, A. L., (Boeing) Biferno, M. A., Corwin, W. H. and Metalis, S., (Douglas), 1987, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Assessment of Crew Workload Measurement Methods, Techniques, and Procedures: Part Task Simulation Data Summary, AFWAL-TR-87–3103, Sept. 15–16.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, S. P., 1983, Assessing The Validity of SWAT as a Workload Measurement Instrument, United States Air Force Academy. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 27th Annual Meeting, 124–128.Google Scholar
  4. Chiles, W. D., 1977, Objective Methods of Developing Indices of Pilot Workload, Civil Aeromedical Institute, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK, July.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, G. E. and Harper, R. P., Jr., 1969, The Use of Pilot Ratings in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities, Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TN D-5153.Google Scholar
  6. Eggemeier, F. T., Crabtree, M. S., and Reid, G. B., 1982, Subjective Workload Assessment in a Memory Update Task, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 26th Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  7. Eggleston, R. G. and Kulwicki, P. V., 1984, A Technology Forecasting and Assessment Method for Evaluating System Utility and Operator Workload, Presented at the 1984 Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society.Google Scholar
  8. Fadden, D. M., 1982, Boeing Model 767 Flight Deck Workload Assessment Methodology, Paper presented at the SAE Guidance and Control System Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, November.Google Scholar
  9. Gerathewohl, S. J., 1977, Inflight Measurement of Pilot Workload, Panelists: E. L. Brown, Douglas Aircraft Co., J. E. Burke, Vought Corporation, K. A. Kimball, USAMRL, S. P. Stackhouse, Honeywell, Inc. and W. Long, Bell Helicopter Co., Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  10. Hart S. G. and Bortolussi, M. R., 1983, Pilot Errors as a Source of Workload, Paper presented at the Second Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  11. Hart S. G., Childress, M. E., and Hauser, J. R., 1982, Individual Definitions of the Term Workload, Paper presented at the 1982 Psychology in the DOD Symposium.Google Scholar
  12. Hart S. G., and Staveland, L. E., In press,Development of a Multi-dimensional Workload Rating Scale: Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research, To appear in P. A.Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload, Amsterdam: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hay, G. C. House, C. D., and Sulzer, R. L., 1978, Summary Report of 19771978 Task Force on Crew Workload. Report No. FAA-EM-78–15, U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C., December.Google Scholar
  14. Linton, P. M., Jahns, D. W. and Chatelier, P. R., 1977, Operator Workload Assessment Model: An Evolution of a VF/VA-V/STOL System, AGARD-CPP-216, Aerospace Medical Panel Specialist Meeting, Koln, Germany, 18–22 April.Google Scholar
  15. McLucas, J. L., Drinkwater, F. J. and Leaf, H. W., 1981, Report of the President’s Task Force on Aircraft Crew Complement, Douglas Aircraft Company.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, K. M., 1976, Timeline Analysis Program (TLA–1), Final Report, Boeing Document D6–42377–5, Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center (NASA–CR–144942) April.Google Scholar
  17. Moray, N. (Ed.), 1979, Mental Workload: Its Theory and Measurement, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Parks, D. L., 1978, Current Workload Methods and Emerging Challenges, in Mental Workload: Its Theory and Measurement, N. Moray (Ed.), New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Parks, D. L. and Springer, W. E., 1975, Human Factors Engineering Analytic Process Definition and Criterion Development for CAFES, Boeing Document D180–18750–1, Prepared for Naval Air Development Center, Contract N62269–74–C–0693, June.Google Scholar
  20. Parks, D. L. and Stern, P. H. and Niwa, J. S., 1965, Crew Number Study: Supporting Documentation for Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft, Crew Factors Study, Volume III – Task Allocation Report; Boeing Document D6–16224–3, Prepared for U.S. Air Force Systems Command, Contract AF33(657)–15339, October.Google Scholar
  21. Reid, G. B., Shingledecker, C. A., Nygren, T. E. and Eggemeier, F. T., 1981, Development of Multideminsional Subjective Measures of Workload, Proceedings of the 1981 IEFF International Conference of Cybernetics and Society, 403–406.Google Scholar
  22. Roscoe, A. H., 1978, Assessing Pilot Workload, AGARD-AG 233, AD A051 587, Paris: NATO.Google Scholar
  23. Roscoe, A. H., 1984, Assessing Pilot Workload in Flight, Paper reprinted from Conference Proceedings No. 373 Flight Test Techniques. AGARD, NATO, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, April.Google Scholar
  24. Ruggiero, F. T. and Fadden, D. M., 1987, Pilot Subjective Evaluation of Workload During a Flight Test Certification Program, Paper reprinted from Conference Proceedings No. 282, The Practical Assessment of Pilot Workload, AGARD, NATO.Google Scholar
  25. Shingledecker, C. A. and Crabtree, M. S., 1982, Standardized Test for the Evaluation and Classification of Workload Metrics, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 26th Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  26. Sheridan, T. B. and Simpson, R. W., 1979, Toward the Definition and Measurement of the Mental Workload of Transport Pilots. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, January.Google Scholar
  27. Siegel, A. I. and Wolf, J. J., 1961, Techniques for Evaluating Operator Loading in Man-Machine Systems, Applied Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  28. Stone, G., Gulick, R. K. and Gabriel, R. F., 1985, Use of Task/Timeline Analysis to Assess Crew Workload, Douglas Paper 7592, Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Sulzer, R., Cox., W. J., and Mohler, S. R., 1981, Flight Crewmember Workload Evaluation, DOT/FAA/RD-82/83.Google Scholar
  30. Wickens, C. D., 1980, The Structure of Attentional Resources, in Attention and Performance VIII, R. Nickerson and R. Pew (Eds.), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Wierwille, W. W., 1979, Physiological Measures of Aircrew Mental Workload, Human Factors, 21, 575–593.Google Scholar
  32. Wierwille, W. W., and Casali, J. G., 1983, A Validated Rating Scale for Global Mental Workload Measurement Applications. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 27th Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  33. Weiner, J. S., 1982, The Measurement of Human Workload, Ergonomics 25, 953–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitley, L. C., and Vaughn, R. R., 1968, Man-Machine Stochastic Simulator TEN-708, MMSS Volume I, Boeing Document D6–29184-TN-1, April.Google Scholar
  35. Whitley, L. C., and Vaughn, R. R., 1968, Man-Machine Stochastic Simulator TEN-708, MMSS Volume II, Boeing Document D6–29184-TN-II, April.Google Scholar
  36. Whitmore, D. C. and Parks, D. L., 1974, Computer Aided Function–Allocation Evaluation System (CAFES), Phase IV, Final Report, Boeing Document D180–18433–1, Prepared for Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville, (Contract N62269–74–C–0274), December.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald L. Parks
    • 1
  • George P. BoucekJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.The Boeing CompanyUSA

Personalised recommendations