The Workload and Performance Relationship in the Real World: A Study of Police Officers in a Field Shooting Exercise

• Autorzy: Oron-Gilad T. , Szalma J. L. , Stafford S. C. , Hancock P. A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We examined the relationship between perceived workload and performance by evaluating the responses of police officers to 4 different draw-and-shoot tasks in a night field training exercise which was part of their regular training regimen. Sixty-two police officers volunteered to participate. Results demonstrated an associative trend among 3 tasks where shooting performance decreased and workload increased as the tasks became more complex. However, performance on 1 specific shooting task did not correlate with any of the other 3 tasks, and in this 1 exceptional case, insensitivities were observed in which workload increased but performance remained constant.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

field study; police officers; shooting; training; workload; performance

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: Vol. 14, No. 2
• Strony: 119--131
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 27 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Oron-Gilad T.

• Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

autor

Szalma J. L.

• University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

autor

Stafford S. C.

• University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

autor

Hancock P. A.

• University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

Bibliografia

• 1.Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland; 1988.
• 2.Hancock PA. Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics. 1996;39:1146–62.
• 3.Parasuraman R, Hancock PA. Adaptive control of cental workload. In: Hancock PA, Desmond PA, editors. Stress, workload, and fatigue. 1st ed. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2001. p. 305–20.
• 4.Yeh YY, Wickens CD. Dissociations of performance and subjective measures of workload. Hum Factors. 1988;30:111–20.
• 5.Warm JS, Dember WN, Hancock PA. Vigilance and workload in automated systems. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M, editors. Automation and human performance. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 1996. p. 183–200.
• 6.Szalma JL, Warm JS, Matthews G, Dember WN, Weiler EM, Meier A, et al. Effects of sensory modality and task duration on performance, workload, and stress in sustained attention. Hum Factors. 2004;46:219–33.
• 7.Kahneman D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall; 1973.
• 8.Gopher D, Donchin E. Workload: an examination of the concept. In: Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP, editors. Handbook of human performance. Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance. New York, NY, USA: Wiley; 1986. p. 41.1–41.49.
• 9.Wickens CD. The structure of attentional resources. In: Nickerson R, editor. Attention and performance VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1980. p. 239–57.
• 10.Norman DA, Bobrow DG. On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cognit Psychol. 1975;7:44–64.
• 11.Vidulich MA, Wickens CD. Causes of dissociation between subjective workload measures and performance. Caveats for the use of subjective assessments. App Ergon. 1986;17:291–6.
• 12.Hancock PA, Desmond PA, editors. Stress, workload and fatigue. 1st ed. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2001.
• 13.Hancock PA, Warm JS. A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Hum Factors. 1989;31:519–37.
• 14.Beilock SL, Carr TH. On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001; 130:701–25.
• 15.Beilock SL, Carr TH, MacMahon C, Starkes JL. When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8:6–16.
• 16.Masters RSW. Knowledge, knerves, and know-how: the role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown on a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology. 1992;83:343–58.
• 17.Schneider W, Fisk AD. Attentional theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In: Magill RA, editor. Memory and control of action. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland; 1983. p. 119–43.
• 18.Schneider W, Shiffrin, RM. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(1):1–66.
• 19.Newell A. The knowledge level [Presidential address]. AI Magazine. 1980;2(2):1–20.
• 20.Johnson A. We learn from our mistakes–don’t we? Ergon Des. 2004;12:24–7.
• 21.Block RA, Zakay D, Hancock PA. Developmental changes in human duration judgments: a meta-analytic review. Dev Rev. 1999;19:183–211.
• 22.Hart SG. Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: P.A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland; 1988. p. 139–83.
• 23.Byers JC, Bittner AC, Hill, SG. Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary? In: Mital A, editor. Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety, I. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1989. p. 481–5.
• 24.Nygren TE. Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Hum Factors. 1991;33:17–33.
• 25.Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2004.
• 26.Hancock PA, Weaver JL. Temporal distortions under extreme stress. TIES. 2005;6(2):193–211.
• 27.O’Donnell RD, Eggemeier FT. Workload assessment methodology. In: Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP, editors. Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance. New York, NY, USA: Wiley; 1986. p. 42.1–42.49.