Advertisement

Determining the Ecological Validity of Simulation Environments in Support of Human Competency Development

  • Glenn A. HodgesEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 780)

Abstract

This paper discusses the development and use of an analytical assessment methodology that applies Systems Engineering principles, Ecological Affordance Theory, and Human Abilities, to measure the potential of integrated simulation training environments (ITEs) to support the development of competence in the execution of specific military missions. The results of this research include the development and use of the integrated training environment assessment methodology (ITEAM). ITEAM was used to re-evaluate the ecological validity of several ITEs ability to support the development of specific competencies during training.

Keywords

Systems engineering Affordance theory Human ability requirements Simulation Training Military Competency development Performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work presented here was supported by the Naval Postgraduate School. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and should not to be interpreted as an official position of NPS, the USA, or the Department of Defense.

References

  1. 1.
    Salas, E., Rosen, M., Held, J., Weissmuller, J.: Performance measurement in simulation-based training: a review and best practices. Simul. Gaming 40, 328–376 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hodges, G., Darken, R., McCauley, M.: An analytical method for assessing the effectiveness of human in the loop simulation environments: a work in progress. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Spring Simulation Multi-conference. The Society for Modeling and Simulation International, Tampa (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tufano, D., Evans, R.: The prediction of training device effectiveness: a review of army models. Technical report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (1982)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keesling, J., King, J., Mullen, W.: Simulation training strategies for force XXI. Technical report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sticha, P., Campbell, R., Knerr, M.: Individual and collective training in live, virtual and constructive environments–training concepts for virtual environments. Study report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilligan, E., Elder, B., Sticha, P.: Optimization of simulation-based training systems: user’s guide. Technical report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neal, G.: Overview of training effectiveness analysis. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 26th Annual Meeting, pp. 244–248. SAGE (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simpson, H.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of training in the department of defense. Technical report, Defense Manpower Data Center (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carter, R.J.: Methodologies for evaluating training products and processes. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 258–262. SAGE (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maitland, A.: Training effectiveness analysis: where the operator meets the equipment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 255–257. SAGE (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drillings, M.: Director’s corner. MANPRINT (2013). http://www.manprint.army.mil
  12. 12.
    Kerry, J.: Competency in the military. In: Ford, J. (ed.) Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations. Psychology Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J., Kozlowski, S.: The science and practice of training—current trends and emerging themes. In: Ford, J. (ed.) Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations. Psychology Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gilbert, T.: Human Competence, Engineering Worth Performance, Tribute edn. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bennett, W., Alliger, G., Colegrove, C., Garrity, M., Beard, R.: Mission essential competencies: a novel approach to proficiency-based live, virtual, and constructive readiness training and assessment. In: Ford, J. (ed.) Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations. Psychology Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hays, R., Singer, M.: Research issues in training device design. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting, pp. 147–150. SAGE (1983)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Napoletano, N.: The eyes have it: simulated sound visualization for testing. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference, NTSA (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rossmeissl, P., Tillman, B., Rigg, K., Best, P.: Job assessment software system (JASS) for analysis of weapon systems personnel requirements. Technical report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (1983)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cockayne, W.: Two-handed, whole-hand interaction. Masters thesis, Naval Postgraduate School (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Middlebrooks, S., Knapp, B., Tillman, B.: An evaluation of skills and abilities required in the simultaneous performance of using a mobile telephone and driving an automobile. Technical report, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fleishman, E., Quaintance, M.: Taxonomies of Human Performance: The Description of Human Tasks. Academic Press, Orlando (1984)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fleishman, E., Mumford, M.: Evaluating classifications of job behavior: a construct validation of the ability requirement scales. Pers. Psychol. 44, 523–575 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleishman, E., Bartlett, C.: Human abilities. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 20, 349–380 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gibson, J.: The theory of affordances. In: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, pp. 127–143. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bærentsen, K., Trettvik, J.: An activity theory approach to affordance. In: Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference of Human Computer Interaction, pp. 51–60. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chemero, A., Turvey, M.: Gibsonian affordances for roboticists. Adapt. Behav. 15, 473–480 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lintern, G.: An affordance-based perspective on human-machine interface design. Ecol. Psychol. 12, 65–69 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rome, E., Paletta, L., Sahin, E., Dorffner, G., Hertzberg, J., Breithaupt, R., Fritz, G., Uğur, E.: The MACS project: an approach to affordance-inspired robot control. In: Rome, E., Hertzberg, J., Dorffner, G. (eds.) Towards Affordance-Based Robot Control, pp. 173–210. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jones, K.: What is an affordance? Ecol. Psychol. 15, 107–114 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Michaels, C.: Affordances: four points of debate. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 135–148 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chemero, A.: An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 181–195 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stoffregen, T.: Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 115–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turvey, M.: Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecol. Psychol. 4, 173–187 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Under Secretary of Defense: Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) Instruction, DoD Instruction 5000-61 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hodges, G.: Identifying the limits of an integrated training environment using human abilities and affordance theory. Doctoral dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature (outside the USA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Modeling, Virtual Environments, and Simulation Institute (MOVES) Naval Postgraduate SchoolMontereyUSA

Personalised recommendations