Describe the development and validation of the Subjective Habitability & Acceptability Questionnaire (SHAQ).
Background
Habitat area size, layout, and design may impact individual and team behavioral health and performance (BHP) outcomes in operational environments. However, there are no standardized measures of these relationships.
Method
SHAQ is a modular survey consisting of two 6-item scales: BHP Outcomes (Performance of Individual Activities, Performance of Group Activities, Mood, Psychological Stress, Sleep, and Social Interactions) and Habitability Moderators (Privacy, Social Density, Efficiency, Control, Comfort, and Convenience). We collected SHAQ data from NASA’s Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) crews (n = 19) in reference to multiple habitat areas (Sleep/Bedroom, Hygiene/Bathroom, Work/Office/Workshop, and Food Preparation/Kitchen/Galley) in the HERA operational environment, private hotel rooms, and individual home habitats.
Results
SHAQ has high construct validity (single factor solutions, mean item factor loading = 0.760, mean % variance = 60.37), internal consistency and reliability (item mean α = 0.880, mean ω=0.894, mean ICC = 0.430), concurrent validity (mean item r with System Usability Scale = 0.42), and discriminant validity (e.g., significantly higher facilitation of group activities in HERA Work/Office/Workshop and Food Preparation/Kitchen/Galley areas vs. Hygiene/Bathroom and Sleep/Bedroom areas; significantly higher ratings of privacy, comfort, and convenience in hotel vs. HERA).
Conclusion
SHAQ is a reliable, valid, and sensitive measure of BHP impacts of habitat size and layout.
Application
SHAQ can be used to inform evidence-based recommendations and thresholds for habitat area size, layout, and design options to support individual and team BHP in operational environments.
AbeysiriwardhaneA.LützhöftM.GhoshS. (2021). Learning and learning-to-learn by doing: An experiential learning approach for integrating human factors into maritime design education. Maritime Technology and Research, 3(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2021.241912
2.
AkinD. L.McBryanK.LimparisN.D’AmoreN.CarlsenC. (2014, July). Habitat design and assessment at varying gravity levels. In 44th International Conference on Environmental Systems (pp. 13–17). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Library System. http://spacearchitect.org/pubs/ICES-2014-264.pdf.
3.
AmickR. Z.Russi-VigoyaM. N. (2020). Evidence Sub-Report on the Risk of Incompatible Vehicle/Habitat Design. In Evidence Report on the Risk of Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture. Houston, TX: NASA Johnson Space Center. https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/.
BannovaO. (2004). Space habitat design considerations related to different gravity environment. In Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments: Earth and Space (pp. 782-788). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
6.
Bargas-AvilaJ. A.HornbækK. (2011). May). Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: A critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2689-2698). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979336.
7.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In JordanP.ThomasB.WeerdmeesterB. (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.
9.
CarpenterL.HannerC.AkinD. (2018, July). Experimental investigation of vertical translation design commonality across differing gravitation levels. In 48th International Conference on Environmental Systems (pp. 1–12). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Library System. http://hdl.handle.net/2346/74195.
10.
CelentanoJ. T.AmorelliD. (1963). Crew Status in Various Space Cabin Configurations and Volumes (NAA Publication 543-Q). North American Aviation.
11.
ChenM.ArellanoJ.HsiangS.LimC.RamirezC.MorencyR.GoodenowD.MyersJ. (2019). Spacecraft optimization layout and volume (SOLV): Development of a model to estimate volume. Presentation at the NASA Human Research Program Investigators’ Workshop.
12.
ClémentG. R.BoyleR. D.GeorgeK. A.NelsonG. A.ReschkeM. F.WilliamsT. J.PaloskiW. H. (2020). Challenges to the central nervous system during human spaceflight missions to Mars. Journal of Neurophysiology, 123(5), 2037–2063. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00476.2019
13.
CohenM. M. (2008). Testing the celentano curve: An empirical survey of predictions for human spacecraft pressurized volume. SAE International Journal of Aerospace, 1(1), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-2027
14.
CohenM. M.Haeuplik-MeusburgerS. (2015, July). What do we give up and leave behind?Paper presented at the 45th international conference on environmental systems, Bellevue, WA, USA.http://hdl.handle.net/2346/64353
15.
ConnorsM. M.HarrisonA. A.AkinsF. R. (1985). Living aloft: Human requirements for extended spaceflight (Vol. 483). Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
16.
CromwellR. L.NeigutJ. (2020). Spaceflight research on the ground: Managing analogs for behavioral health research. In LandonL.B.SlackK.J.SalasE. (Eds.), Psychology and human performance in space programs, volume 1: Research at the Frontier (pp. 23–45). Taylor & Francis.
17.
CrusanJ. C.CraigD. A.HerrmannN. B. (2017, March). NASA’s deep space habitation strategy. In 2017 IEEE aerospace conference (pp. 1–11). IEEE.
18.
de WinterJ. C. F.DodouD.WieringaP. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206
19.
FlynnD.Van SchaikP.Van WerschA. (2004). A comparison of multi-item likert and visual analogue scales for the assessment of transactionally defined coping function. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.1.49
20.
Flynn-EvansE.GregoryK.ArsintescuL.WhitmireA. (2016). Risk of performance decrements and adverse health outcomes resulting from sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload. https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/.
21.
FraserT. M. (1966). The effects of confinement as a factor in manned space flight (NASA Technical Report NASA CR- 511). National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
22.
GallucciM. (2019). GAMLj: General analyses for linear models. [jamovi module]. Retrieved fromhttps://gamlj.github.io/.
23.
GreeneM.ThaxtonS.AdolfJ. (2018). Habitability assessment of International Space Station (ISS Habitability): Final Report. Internal report delivered to the Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element. NASA Human Research Program.
24.
GundersonE. K. E. (1970). A social systems approach to habitability. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Department of the Navy (Report No. 70–23).
25.
GundersonE. K. E. (1974). Physical environments, habitability perceptions, and health. A social systems approach to habitability. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Department of the Navy (Report No. 74–58).
26.
HancockP. A.PepeA. A.MurphyL. L. (2005). Hedonomics: The power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 13(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/106480460501300104
27.
HarrisonA. A. (2001). Spacefaring: The human dimension. University of California Press.
28.
HartS. G. (2006, October). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, pp. 904–908). Sage Publications.
29.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9.
30.
HassenzahlM.DiefenbachS.GöritzA. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products - Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
33.
HoweA. S.SimonM.SmithermanD.HowardR.ToupsL.HoffmanS. J. (2015, March). Mars surface habitability options. In 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference (pp. 1–9). IEEE.
34.
JennathK. A.NidhishP. J. (2016). Aesthetic judgement and visual impact of architectural forms: a study of library buildings. Procedia Technology, 24, 1808–1818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.226.
35.
KearneyA. B. (2016a). Mitigating risks to psychological and behavioral health in long duration spaceflight: Towards a portfolio of countermeasures. NASA Technical Memorandum NASA/TM-2016-219275. NASA Johnson Space Center.
36.
KearneyA. B. (2016b). Team health and performance in spaceflight habitats: Risks, countermeasures, and research Recommendations. NASA technical memorandum NASA/TM-2016-219274. NASA Johnson Space Center.
37.
KlimekL.BergmannK.-C.BiedermannT.BousquetJ.HellingsP.JungK.MerkH.OlzeH.SchlenterW.StockP.RingJ.WagenmannM.WehrmannW.MösgesR.PfaarO. (2017). Visual analogue scales (VAS): Measuring instruments for the documentation of symptoms and therapy monitoring in cases of allergic rhinitis in everyday health care. Allergo Journal International, 26(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40629-016-0006-7
38.
KlinenbergE. (2016). Social isolation, loneliness, and living alone: Identifying the risks for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 106(5), 786–787. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303166
39.
KujalaS.RotoV.Väänänen-Vainio-MattilaK.KarapanosE.SinneläA. (2011). UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.06.005
40.
LandonL.B. (in press). Evidence report: Risk of performance and behavioral health decrements due to inadequate cooperation, coordination, communication, and psychosocial adaptation within a team. https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/.
41.
LandonL.B.WhitmireA.M.RomaP.G. (2020). Behavioral health and performance analysis for the international space station (ISS) Habitability Directed Study. Internal report delivered to NASA Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element. NASA Johnson Space Center.
42.
LewisJ. R. (2018). The system usability scale: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307
43.
LitakerH. L.JrArcherR. D.SzaboR.TwyfordE. S.ConleeC. S.HowardR. L. (2013). Human habitation field study of the Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU). Acta Astronautica, 90(2), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.018
44.
DLongneckerRMolins (Eds) (2006). A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA’s Bioastronautics Roadmap. National Research Council.
45.
MatsangasP.ShattuckN. L. (2020). Habitability in berthing compartments and well-being of sailors working on U.S. Navy surface ships. Human Factors, 63(3), 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820906050
46.
MeadeA. W.CraigS. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
47.
MohantyS.JørgensenJ.NyströmM. (2006, September). Psychological factors associated with habitat design for planetary mission simulators. In Paper presented at the annual AIAA SPACE Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-7345
48.
NASA. (2011). Human integration design Handbook. NASA/SP-2010-3407.
49.
NASA. (2019). NASA space flight human-system standard. Volume 2. Revision B: Human factors, habitability, and environmental health. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
50.
NasarJ. L. (2000). The evaluative image of places. In WalshW. B.CraikK. H.PriceR. H. (Eds.), Person–Environment Psychology: New Directions and Perspectives (pp. 117–168). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
51.
Oron-GiladT.HancockP. A. (2017). From Ergonomics to Hedonomics: Trends in human factors and technology-the role of hedonomics revisited. In Emotions and Affect in Human Factors and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 185–194). Academic Press.
52.
PantellM.RehkopfD.JutteD.SymeS. L.BalmesJ.AdlerN. (2013). Social isolation: A predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 2056–2062. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301261
53.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 3.6). [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/.
54.
Rabe-HeskethS.SkrondalA. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (3rd ed), Vol 1: Continuous responses. STATA Press.
55.
ReiseS. P.VenturaJ.NuechterleinK. H.KimK. H. (2005). An illustration of multilevel factor analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8402_02
56.
RevelleW. (2019). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. [R package]. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/package=psych.
57.
RudisillM.HowardR.GriffinB.GreenJ.ToupsL.KennedyK. (2008). Lunar Architecture Team: Phase 2 Habitat Volume Estimation: Caution When Using Analogs. In Earth & Space 2008: Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments (pp. 1-11). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.. https://doi.org/10.1061/40988(323)101.
58.
SchornJ. M.RomaP. G. (2020). Physical hazards of space exploration and the biological bases of behavioral health and performance in extreme environments. In LandonL. B.SlackK. J.SalasE. (Eds.), Psychology and Human Performance in Space Programs: Research at the Frontier (Vol. 1, pp. 1–22). Taylor & Francis Group.
59.
SeatonR. W.CollinsJ. B. (1972). Validity and reliability of ratings of simulated buildings. In MitchellW. J. (Ed.), Environmental Design: Research and Practice (pp. 6–10). EDRA.
60.
ShobeK.BingM.DuplessisC.DycheJ.FothergillD.HornW.LambJ.QuatrocheA.WatenpaughD. EPlottC.DycheJ. (2003). Psychological, physiological, and medical impact of the submarine environment on submariners with application to Virginia Class submarines (Tech. Rep. No. TR-1229). U.S. Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory.
SimonM. A.WilhiteA. W. (2013). A tool for the automated design and evaluation of habitat interior layouts. In AIAA SPACE 2013 Conference and Exposition (p. 5305). AIAA.
63.
StromgrenC.BurkeC.ChoJ.RuckerM. A.Garcia-RoblesM. (2020). Defining the Required Net Habitable Volume for Long-Duration Exploration Missions. In ASCEND 2020 (p. 4032). Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-4032.
64.
StusterJ. (2016). Behavioral issues associated with isolation and confinement: Review and analysis of astronaut journals Phase II. NASA/TM-2016-218603.
65.
StusterJ.AdolfJ.ByrneV.GreeneM. (2019). Generalizable skills and knowledge for exploration missions. NASA/CR-2018-220445.
VangeneugdenT.LaenenA.GeysH.RenardD.MolenberghsG. (2004). Applying linear mixed models to estimate reliability in clinical trial data with repeated measurements. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.009
68.
WeijtersB.BaumgartnerH. (2012). Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0368
69.
WhitingS. E.SchornJ. M.WilliamsT. J.WhitmireA. M. (in press). Evidence report: Risk of adverse cognitive or behavioral conditions and psychiatric disorders. Retrieved fromhttps://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/
70.
WhitmireA.LevetonL. B.BroughtonH.BasnerM.KearneyA.IkumaL.MorrisM. (2015). Minimum acceptable net habitable volume for long-duration exploration missions: Subject matter expert consensus session report. NASA human research program. NASA/TM-2015-218564.
71.
WhitmoreM.AdolfJ. A.WoolfordB. J. (2000). Habitability research priorities for the International Space Station and beyond. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 71(9 Suppl), Article A122–A125.
72.
WielandA.DurachC. F.KembroJ.TreiblmaierH. (2017). Statistical and judgmental criteria for scale purification. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(4), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2016-0230
73.
WielandA.KockF.JosiassenA. (2018). Scale purification: State-of-the-art review and guidelines. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(11), 3346–3362. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0740
74.
WilcoveG. L. (2006). 2002 Navy Quality of life (QOL) survey: Shipboard life results (report No. NPRST-AB-06-2). Bureau of Naval Personnel.
75.
WilcoveG. L.SchwerinM. J.KlineT. (2009). Quality of life in the U.S. Navy: Impact on performance and career continuance. Military Psychology, 21(4), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600903206362
76.
WilcoveG. L.SchwerinM. J.WolosinD. G. (2003). An exploratory model of quality of life in the U.S. Navy. Military Psychology, 15(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1502_3
77.
YarboughP. (2019, December). HERA isolation research in a team environment: Isolated, confined, and controlled. Presentation at NASA Johnson Space Center,
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
