On the Specification of Operator or Occupational Workload with Performance-Measurement Methods
Five system-output or performance-measurement methods have been described in the literature for use in operator or occupational workload specifications: laboratory, analytic, synthetic, simulation, and operational-system methods. A review and analysis of these methods indicates that laboratory metho...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Human factors 1979-10, Vol.21 (5), p.515-528 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 528 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 515 |
container_title | Human factors |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Chiles, W. Dean Alluisi, Earl A. |
description | Five system-output or performance-measurement methods have been described in the literature for use in operator or occupational workload specifications: laboratory, analytic, synthetic, simulation, and operational-system methods. A review and analysis of these methods indicates that laboratory methods, where appropriate, are the methods of choice, with the synthetic-work technique especially well suited to examinations of general workload questions. Analytic and synthetic methods appear to yield reasonable results, but both rest on relatively fragile data bases; with correction of this deficiency and further research on time-sharing behavior or function interlacing, these methods should prove to be quite helpful, especially in systems designs and workload allocations. Simulation methods have the potential of providing quite useful information on operator workload, but simulators have not generally been employed for this purpose, and some of the difficulties implicit in their use are discussed. Operational-system methods, except for some possible safety limitations, can be used on virtually any workload-specification problem suitable for investigation in a simulator, but the problems of data recording can be substantial, and often there is little agreement on what should be measured as criteria of good performance. The need for reliable, valid, quantitative criteria to reflect system performance is stressed, and a potentially useful paired-comparisons scaling procedure is described. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/001872087902100501 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1974851701</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_001872087902100501</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1311855064</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-fdca10ce0dea6b0e1623b15af326aa5319b4bcc4a2b70ecfe91bc0e123184be63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRsFb_gKcFz7Ez2Ww2OUrxC1oqqHgzbDazNrXNxt0E8d-bWg-CKAzMYZ7nZXgZO0U4R1RqAoCZiiFTOcQIIAH32AhloqIMM9xnoy0QbYlDdhTCCgDSXMgRe140vFsSv2_J1LY2uqtdw53li5a87pznwyyM6duvi17zJ-df105X_L3ulvyOvHV-oxtD0Zx06D1tqOn4nLqlq8IxO7B6Hejke4_Z49Xlw_Qmmi2ub6cXs8iIBLvIVkYjGIKKdFoCYRqLEqW2Ik61lgLzMimNSXRcKiBjKcfSDFgsMEtKSsWYne1yW-_eegpdsXK9H94NBeYqySQqwH8pgZhJCWkyUPGOMt6F4MkWra832n8UCMW27eJ324M02UlBv9CP2L-NT8Ypf5k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1311855064</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On the Specification of Operator or Occupational Workload with Performance-Measurement Methods</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Chiles, W. Dean ; Alluisi, Earl A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Chiles, W. Dean ; Alluisi, Earl A.</creatorcontrib><description>Five system-output or performance-measurement methods have been described in the literature for use in operator or occupational workload specifications: laboratory, analytic, synthetic, simulation, and operational-system methods. A review and analysis of these methods indicates that laboratory methods, where appropriate, are the methods of choice, with the synthetic-work technique especially well suited to examinations of general workload questions. Analytic and synthetic methods appear to yield reasonable results, but both rest on relatively fragile data bases; with correction of this deficiency and further research on time-sharing behavior or function interlacing, these methods should prove to be quite helpful, especially in systems designs and workload allocations. Simulation methods have the potential of providing quite useful information on operator workload, but simulators have not generally been employed for this purpose, and some of the difficulties implicit in their use are discussed. Operational-system methods, except for some possible safety limitations, can be used on virtually any workload-specification problem suitable for investigation in a simulator, but the problems of data recording can be substantial, and often there is little agreement on what should be measured as criteria of good performance. The need for reliable, valid, quantitative criteria to reflect system performance is stressed, and a potentially useful paired-comparisons scaling procedure is described.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0018-7208</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1547-8181</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/001872087902100501</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Allocations ; Criteria ; Data recording ; Laboratories ; Laboratory methods ; Measurement methods ; Scaling ; Simulation ; Simulators ; Specifications ; Workload ; Workloads</subject><ispartof>Human factors, 1979-10, Vol.21 (5), p.515-528</ispartof><rights>1979 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-fdca10ce0dea6b0e1623b15af326aa5319b4bcc4a2b70ecfe91bc0e123184be63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-fdca10ce0dea6b0e1623b15af326aa5319b4bcc4a2b70ecfe91bc0e123184be63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001872087902100501$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001872087902100501$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,21806,27856,27911,27912,43608,43609</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chiles, W. Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alluisi, Earl A.</creatorcontrib><title>On the Specification of Operator or Occupational Workload with Performance-Measurement Methods</title><title>Human factors</title><description>Five system-output or performance-measurement methods have been described in the literature for use in operator or occupational workload specifications: laboratory, analytic, synthetic, simulation, and operational-system methods. A review and analysis of these methods indicates that laboratory methods, where appropriate, are the methods of choice, with the synthetic-work technique especially well suited to examinations of general workload questions. Analytic and synthetic methods appear to yield reasonable results, but both rest on relatively fragile data bases; with correction of this deficiency and further research on time-sharing behavior or function interlacing, these methods should prove to be quite helpful, especially in systems designs and workload allocations. Simulation methods have the potential of providing quite useful information on operator workload, but simulators have not generally been employed for this purpose, and some of the difficulties implicit in their use are discussed. Operational-system methods, except for some possible safety limitations, can be used on virtually any workload-specification problem suitable for investigation in a simulator, but the problems of data recording can be substantial, and often there is little agreement on what should be measured as criteria of good performance. The need for reliable, valid, quantitative criteria to reflect system performance is stressed, and a potentially useful paired-comparisons scaling procedure is described.</description><subject>Allocations</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Data recording</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Laboratory methods</subject><subject>Measurement methods</subject><subject>Scaling</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Simulators</subject><subject>Specifications</subject><subject>Workload</subject><subject>Workloads</subject><issn>0018-7208</issn><issn>1547-8181</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1979</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRsFb_gKcFz7Ez2Ww2OUrxC1oqqHgzbDazNrXNxt0E8d-bWg-CKAzMYZ7nZXgZO0U4R1RqAoCZiiFTOcQIIAH32AhloqIMM9xnoy0QbYlDdhTCCgDSXMgRe140vFsSv2_J1LY2uqtdw53li5a87pznwyyM6duvi17zJ-df105X_L3ulvyOvHV-oxtD0Zx06D1tqOn4nLqlq8IxO7B6Hejke4_Z49Xlw_Qmmi2ub6cXs8iIBLvIVkYjGIKKdFoCYRqLEqW2Ik61lgLzMimNSXRcKiBjKcfSDFgsMEtKSsWYne1yW-_eegpdsXK9H94NBeYqySQqwH8pgZhJCWkyUPGOMt6F4MkWra832n8UCMW27eJ324M02UlBv9CP2L-NT8Ypf5k</recordid><startdate>197910</startdate><enddate>197910</enddate><creator>Chiles, W. Dean</creator><creator>Alluisi, Earl A.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Human Factors Society of America</general><general>Human Factors and Ergonomics Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JRZRW</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>197910</creationdate><title>On the Specification of Operator or Occupational Workload with Performance-Measurement Methods</title><author>Chiles, W. Dean ; Alluisi, Earl A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-fdca10ce0dea6b0e1623b15af326aa5319b4bcc4a2b70ecfe91bc0e123184be63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1979</creationdate><topic>Allocations</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Data recording</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Laboratory methods</topic><topic>Measurement methods</topic><topic>Scaling</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Simulators</topic><topic>Specifications</topic><topic>Workload</topic><topic>Workloads</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chiles, W. Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alluisi, Earl A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 35</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Human factors</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chiles, W. Dean</au><au>Alluisi, Earl A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On the Specification of Operator or Occupational Workload with Performance-Measurement Methods</atitle><jtitle>Human factors</jtitle><date>1979-10</date><risdate>1979</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>515</spage><epage>528</epage><pages>515-528</pages><issn>0018-7208</issn><eissn>1547-8181</eissn><abstract>Five system-output or performance-measurement methods have been described in the literature for use in operator or occupational workload specifications: laboratory, analytic, synthetic, simulation, and operational-system methods. A review and analysis of these methods indicates that laboratory methods, where appropriate, are the methods of choice, with the synthetic-work technique especially well suited to examinations of general workload questions. Analytic and synthetic methods appear to yield reasonable results, but both rest on relatively fragile data bases; with correction of this deficiency and further research on time-sharing behavior or function interlacing, these methods should prove to be quite helpful, especially in systems designs and workload allocations. Simulation methods have the potential of providing quite useful information on operator workload, but simulators have not generally been employed for this purpose, and some of the difficulties implicit in their use are discussed. Operational-system methods, except for some possible safety limitations, can be used on virtually any workload-specification problem suitable for investigation in a simulator, but the problems of data recording can be substantial, and often there is little agreement on what should be measured as criteria of good performance. The need for reliable, valid, quantitative criteria to reflect system performance is stressed, and a potentially useful paired-comparisons scaling procedure is described.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/001872087902100501</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0018-7208 |
ispartof | Human factors, 1979-10, Vol.21 (5), p.515-528 |
issn | 0018-7208 1547-8181 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1974851701 |
source | Periodicals Index Online; SAGE Complete A-Z List |
subjects | Allocations Criteria Data recording Laboratories Laboratory methods Measurement methods Scaling Simulation Simulators Specifications Workload Workloads |
title | On the Specification of Operator or Occupational Workload with Performance-Measurement Methods |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T13%3A18%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20the%20Specification%20of%20Operator%20or%20Occupational%20Workload%20with%20Performance-Measurement%20Methods&rft.jtitle=Human%20factors&rft.au=Chiles,%20W.%20Dean&rft.date=1979-10&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=515&rft.epage=528&rft.pages=515-528&rft.issn=0018-7208&rft.eissn=1547-8181&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/001872087902100501&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1311855064%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1311855064&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_001872087902100501&rfr_iscdi=true |