Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics

AHFE 2018: Advances in Human Factors in Simulation and Modeling pp 3–14Cite as

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 1349 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Simpson, H.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of training in the department of defense. Technical report, Defense Manpower Data Center (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Drillings, M.: Director’s corner. MANPRINT (2013). http://www.manprint.army.mil

  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. 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. Gilbert, T.: Human Competence, Engineering Worth Performance, Tribute edn. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. Cockayne, W.: Two-handed, whole-hand interaction. Masters thesis, Naval Postgraduate School (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Fleishman, E., Quaintance, M.: Taxonomies of Human Performance: The Description of Human Tasks. Academic Press, Orlando (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fleishman, E., Mumford, M.: Evaluating classifications of job behavior: a construct validation of the ability requirement scales. Pers. Psychol. 44, 523–575 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fleishman, E., Bartlett, C.: Human abilities. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 20, 349–380 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Chemero, A., Turvey, M.: Gibsonian affordances for roboticists. Adapt. Behav. 15, 473–480 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lintern, G.: An affordance-based perspective on human-machine interface design. Ecol. Psychol. 12, 65–69 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones, K.: What is an affordance? Ecol. Psychol. 15, 107–114 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Michaels, C.: Affordances: four points of debate. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 135–148 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chemero, A.: An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 181–195 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stoffregen, T.: Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 115–134 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Turvey, M.: Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecol. Psychol. 4, 173–187 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Hodges, G.: Identifying the limits of an integrated training environment using human abilities and affordance theory. Doctoral dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Modeling, Virtual Environments, and Simulation Institute (MOVES) Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 93943, USA

    Glenn A. Hodges

Authors
  1. Glenn A. Hodges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn A. Hodges .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA

    Daniel N. Cassenti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hodges, G.A. (2019). Determining the Ecological Validity of Simulation Environments in Support of Human Competency Development. In: Cassenti, D. (eds) Advances in Human Factors in Simulation and Modeling. AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 780. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94223-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation