Abstract
From the previous chapter, the TACOM measure is now available to quantify the complexity of proceduralized tasks. Therefore, the last question about the development of the TACOM measure would be: is the TACOM measure meaningful for quantifying the complexity of proceduralized tasks? In order to answer this question, we can consider two kinds of validation. The first one is to directly compare the performance of qualified operators with the associated TACOM scores. That is, one should be able to validate the appropriateness of the TACOM measure from the point of view of three performance dimensions – time, error, and efficiency. The second kind of validation can be deduced from one of the canonical advantages of a good procedure. As stated in Sect. 2.1, good procedures guarantee at least three major advantages, and one of them is the standardization of the performance of qualified operators. This means that if the TACOM measure can quantify the complexity of proceduralized tasks, then the performance of qualified operators should be similar when they are performing proceduralized tasks with similar TACOM scores.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bartko JJ (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 19:3–11
Bartko JJ (1976) On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychol Bull 83:762– 765
Bruton A, Conway JH, Holgate ST (2000) Reliability: what is it and how is it measured? Physiotherapy 86(2):94–99
Campbell DJ (1988) Task complexity: a review and analysis. Acad Manage Rev 13(1):40–52
Chater N (2000) The logic of human learning. Nature 407:572–573
Dickinson J, Byblow WD, Ryan LA (1993) Order effects and weighting process in workload assessment. Appl Ergonom 33(1):17–33
Feldman J (2000) Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature 407:630–633
Hamilton WL, Clarke T (2005) Driver performance modelling and its practical application to railway safety. Appl Ergonom 36:661–670
Hancock PA (1996) Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics 39(9):1146–1162
Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human Mental Workload, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.139–183
Hendy KC, Hamilton KM, Landry LN (1993) Measuring subjective workload: when is one scale better than many? Hum Factors 35(4):579–601
Henneman RL, Rouse WB (1984) Measures of human problem solving performance in fault diagnosis tasks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 14:99–112
Hill SG, Iavecchia HP, Byers JC, Bittner, Jr., AC, Zaklad AL, Christ RE (1992) Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Hum Factors 34(4):429–439
Hollnagel E, Kaarstad M, Lee HC (1999) Error mode prediction. Ergonomics 42:1457–1471
Johannsen G, Levis AH, Stassen HG (1994) Theoretical problems in man-machine systems and their experimental validation. Automatica 30:217–231
Johnson EJ, Payne JW (1985) Effort and accuracy in choice. Manage Sci 31:395–414
Kim JH, Lee SJ, Seong PH (2003) Investigation on applicability of information theory to prediction of operator performance in diagnosis tasks at nuclear power plants. IEEE Trans Nuclear Sci 50:1238–1252
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
Levy AS, Lintner S, Kenter K, Speer KP (1999) Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of the shoulder laxity examination. Am J Sport Med 27(4):460–463
Li K, Wieringa PA (2000) Understanding perceived complexity in human supervisory control. Cognit Technol Work 2:75–88
Liu Y, Wickens CD (1994) Mental workload and cognitive task automaticity: an evaluation of subjective and time estimation metrics. Ergonom 37(11):1843–1854
Marinus J, Visser M, Stiggelbout AM, Rabey JM, Martinez-Martin P, Bonuccelli U, Kraus PH, Hilten JJ (2004) A short scale for the assessment of motor impairments and disabilities in Parkinson’s disease: the SPES/SCOPA. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75:388–395
Maynard DC, Hakel MD (1997) Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on performance. Hum Perform 10(4):303–330
Moray N (1999) Advanced displays, cultural stereotypes and organizational characteristics of a control room. In: Misumi J, Wilpert M, Miller R (eds) Nuclear Safety: A Human Factors Perspective. Taylor & Francis, New York
NASA (2009) http://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/TLX/
Nygren TE (1991) Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Hum Factors 33(1):17–33
Ogawa K(1993) A complexity measure of task content in information-input tasks. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 5(2):167–188
Park J, Jung W (2006) A study on the validity of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants – comparing with a subjective workload. IEEE Trans Nuclear Sci 53(5):2962– 2970
Park J, Jung W (2008) A study on the validity of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants – comparing task complexity scores with two sets of operator response time data obtained under a simulated SGTR. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 93:557 566
Reinartz SJ, Reinartz G (1992) Verbal communication in collective control of simulated nuclear power plant incidents. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 36:245–251
Stanton N, Young M (1999) What price ergonomics? Nature 399:197–198
Stanton NA, Baber C (2005) Validating task analysis for error identification: reliability and validity of a human error prediction technique. Ergonomics 48:1097–1113
Stassen HG, Johannsen G, Moray N (1990) Internal representation, internal model, human performance model and mental workload. Automatica 26(4):811–820
Svensson E, Angelbrog-Thandrez M, Sjoberg L, Olsson S (1997) Information complexity: mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics 40:362–380
Vidulich MA, Tsang PS (1986) Technique of subjective workload assessment: a comparison of SWAT and the NASA-Bipolar methods. Ergonomics 29(11):1385–1398
Visser M, Wieringa PA (2001) PREHEP: Human error probability based process unit selection. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C Appl Rev 31(1):1–15
Wei ZG, Macwan AP, Wieringa PA (1998) A quantitative measure for degree of automation and its relation to system performance and mental load. Hum Factors 40(2):277–295
Wieringa PA, Stassen HG (1993) Assessment of complexity. In: Wise JA, Hopkin VD, Stager P (eds) Verification and validation of complex systems: Human Factors Issues, Springer, Berlin, Heiddelberg, New York, pp.173–180
Zandin KB (2003) MOST Work Measurement Systems, 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Validation of TACOM Measure. In: The Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-791-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-791-2_9
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-790-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-791-2
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)