This review examines how team workload has been studied in action team experiments, consolidates and synthesizes trends and findings, and identifies gaps and directions for future research.
Background
Team workload is often considered a team-level emergent construct distinct from individual workload, but the literature on action team research varies substantially in its conceptualization, manipulation, and measurement of the construct. Accurately characterizing team workload can inform strategies for improving how action teams operate under demanding conditions.
Method
A literature review was conducted, focusing on empirical studies that examined team workload in action team experiments.
Results
We identified diverse methods for measuring team workload, including subjective assessments, performance-based metrics, physiological indicators, and team interaction analyses. Team workload is predominantly analyzed as mean aggregates of individual workloads, though variance-based and configurational analyses were also observed. However, applications of various demand manipulations suggest nonlinear impacts on individuals and teams alike. These findings underscore the complex emergent properties of team workload, which individual workload measures may not capture fully.
Conclusions
There are numerous opportunities to improve and advance the study of team workload in action teams, including gaps in its conceptualization, dynamic measurement, and the application of demand manipulations.
Applications
This review’s findings can guide researchers and practitioners in measuring and manipulating team workload in action teams, highlighting potential methodological pitfalls and offering insights into the relationship between common teaming variables and empirical findings. These insights can be applied to enhance system design, training programs, and team evaluation practices in action team domains.
*AnderssonD.RankinA.DipteeD. (2017). Approaches to team performance assessment: A comparison of self-assessment reports and behavioral observer scales. Cognition, Technology & Work, 19(2), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0428-0
3.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E.BerdahlJ. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Sage Publications.
4.
*BarnesC. M.HollenbeckJ. R.JundtD. K.DeRueD. S.HarmonS. J. (2011). Mixing individual incentives and group incentives: Best of both worlds or social dilemma?Journal of Management, 37(6), 1611–1635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309360845
5.
*BarnesC. M.HollenbeckJ. R.WagnerD. T.DeRueD. S.NahrgangJ. D.SchwindK. M. (2008). Harmful help: The costs of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.529
BedwellW. L.SalasE.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A. (2014). Team workload: A multilevel perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613502665
8.
*BerggrenP.JohanssonB. J.BaroutsiN. (2017). Assessing the quality of Shared Priorities in teams using content analysis in a microworld experiment. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 18(2), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922x.2016.1159354
9.
*BerggrenP.JohanssonB. J.SvenssonE.BaroutsiN.DahlbäckN. (2014). Statistical modelling of team training in a microworld study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 58(1), 894–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581188
10.
*BerggrenP.PrytzE.JohanssonB.NählinderS. (2011). The relationship between workload, teamwork, situation awareness, and performance in teams: A microworld study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 55(1), 851–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551177
11.
*BlissJ. P.FallonC. K. (2003). The effects of leadership style and primary task workload on team performance and follower satisfaction. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 3(2), 259–276. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-00246-005
12.
*Boehm-DavisD. A.GeeS. K.BakerK.Medina-MoraM. (2010). Effect of party line loss and delivery format on crew performance and workload. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 54(1), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193121005400128
13.
BowersC. A.BraunC. C.Morgan JrB. B. (1997). Team workload: Its meaning and measurement. In Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 97–120). Psychology Press.
14.
BowersC. A.JentschF. (2005). Team workload. In StantonN. A.BrookhuisK.SalasE.HendrickH. (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CRC Press.
15.
*BowersC. A.ThorntonC.BraunC.Morgan JrB. B.SalasE. (1998). Automation, task difficulty, and aircrew performance. Military Psychology, 10(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1004_3
16.
*BraarudP. Ø. (2001). Subjective task complexity and subjective workload: Criterion validity for complex team tasks. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327566ijce0503_7
17.
*BretonnierM.MichinovE.Le PabicE.HénauxP.-L.JanninP.MorandiX.RiffaudL. (2020). Impact of the complexity of surgical procedures and intraoperative interruptions on neurosurgical team workload. Neurochirurgie, 66(4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2020.02.003
18.
*Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.BlickensderferE.BowersC. A. (1998). The impact of cross-training and workload on team functioning: A replication and extension of initial findings. Human Factors, 40(1), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480550
19.
*CavuotoL. A.HusseinA. A.VasanV.AhmedY.DurraniA.KhanS.ColeA.WangD.KozlowskiJ.AhmadB.GuruK. A. (2017). Improving teamwork: Evaluating workload of surgical team during robot-assisted surgery. Urology, 107(1), 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.05.012
20.
*CookeN. J. (2005). Moderating effects of team role on workload demands of teams. In Human performance, situation awareness, and automation: Current research and trends HPSAA II, volumes I andII (p. 235). Psychology Press.
21.
CookeN. J.CohenM. C.FazioW. C.InderbergL. H.JohnsonC. J.LemattaG. J.PeelM.TeoA. (2024). From teams to teamness: Future directions in the science of team cognition. Human Factors, 66(1), Article 00187208231162449. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231162449
22.
CookeN. J.GormanJ. C. (2009). Interaction-based measures of cognitive systems. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 3(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1518/155534309x433302
23.
CookeN. J.GormanJ. C.MyersC. W.DuranJ. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12009
24.
CrawfordE. R.LePineJ. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0206
25.
*CuiX.ZhangY.ZhouY.HuangT.LiZ. (2021). Measurements of team workload: A time pressure and scenario complexity study for maritime operation tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 83(1), Article 103110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103110
26.
*DavisB.WelchK.Walsh-HartS.HansemanD.PetroM.GerlachT.DorlacW.CollinsJ.PrittsT. (2014). Effective teamwork and communication mitigate task saturation in simulated critical care air transport team missions. Military Medicine, 179(suppl_8), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00240
27.
*DevlinS. P.FlynnJ. R.RiggsS. L. (2018). Connecting the Big Five taxonomies: Understanding how individual traits contribute to team adaptability under workload transitions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 62(1), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621027
28.
DiasR. D.ZenatiM. A.StevensR.GabanyJ. M.YuleS. J. (2019). Physiological synchronization and entropy as measures of team cognitive load. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 96(1), Article 103250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103250
29.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
30.
*EntinE. B.EntinE. E. (2000). Assessing team situation awareness in simulated military missions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 44(1), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400120
31.
*EntinE. E.MacMillanJ.SerfatyD. (1998). Analysis of organizational processes in adaptive command and control architectures. In SMC’98 conference proceedings. 1998 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (Cat. No. 98CH36218) (Vol. 4, pp. 3664–3668). IEEE.
32.
*EntinE. E.SerfatyD. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 41(2), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872099779591196
33.
*FeighK. M.PritchettA. R. (2014). Requirements for effective function allocation: A critical review. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343413490945
34.
*FincannonT. D.EvansA. W.JentschF.KeeblerJ. (2008). Interactive effects of backup behavior and spatial abilities in the prediction of teammate workload using multiple unmanned vehicles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 52(14), 995–999. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805201409
35.
*FincannonT. D.EvansA. W.JentschF.PhillipsE.KeeblerJ. (2009). Effects of sharing control of unmanned vehicles on backup behavior and workload in distributed operator teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 53(18), 1300–1303. https://doi.org/10.1518/107118109x12524443346518
36.
*FincannonT. D.KeeblerJ. R.JentschF.PhillipsE.EvansA. W.III (2011). Team size, team role, communication modality, and team coordination in the distributed operation of multiple heterogeneous unmanned vehicles. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5(1), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411399073
37.
*FinomoreV. S.KnottB. A.NelsonW. T.GalsterS. M.BoliaR. S. (2007). The effects of multimodal collaboration technology on subjective workload profiles of tactical air battle management teams. In 2007 international symposium on aviation psychology (Vol. 190). Wright State University.
38.
*FouseS.ChampionM.CookeN. J. (2012). The effects of vehicle number and function on performance and workload in human-robot teaming. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 56(1), 398–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561090
FunkeG. J.KnottB. A.SalasE.PavlasD.StrangA. J. (2012). Conceptualization and measurement of team workload: A critical need. Human Factors, 54(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811427901
41.
*FunkeG. J.GalsterS. M. (2007). The effects of spatial processing load and collaboration technology on team performance in a simulated C2 environment. In Proceedings of the 14th European conference on cognitive ergonomics: Invent! explore! (pp. 37–43). IEEE.
42.
*FunkeG. J.GalsterS. M. (2009). The effects of cognitive processing load and collaboration technology on team performance in a simulated command and control environment. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(3), 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.10.007
43.
*FunkeG. J.GalsterS. M.NelsonW. T.DukesA. (2006). Instant messaging and team performance in a simulated command and control environment. International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium.
44.
*FunkeG. J.KnottB. A.GalsterS. M.BrownR. D. (2009). Team workload: A construct worth pursuing? In 2009 international symposium on aviation psychology (pp. 425-430). International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.
45.
*GaoF.CummingsM. L.BertuccelliL. F. (2012). Teamwork in controlling multiple robots. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 81–88). IEEE.
46.
*GaoF.CummingsM. L.SoloveyE. T. (2014). Modeling teamwork in supervisory control of multiple robots. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 44(4), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2014.2312391
47.
*GaoF.CummingsM.SoloveyE. (2016). Designing for robust and effective teamwork in human-agent teams. In Robust intelligence and trust in autonomous systems (pp. 167–190). Springer.
48.
*GaoQ.YuW.JiangX.SongF.PanJ.LiZ. (2015). An integrated computer-based procedure for teamwork in digital nuclear power plants. Ergonomics, 58(8), 1303–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1008055
49.
GarciaA.BaldwinC.FunkeM.FunkeG.KnottB.FinomoreV.WarmJ. (2011). Team vigilance: The effects of co-action on workload in vigilance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1185–1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551247
50.
*GervitsF.EberhardK.ScheutzM. (2016). Team communication as a collaborative process. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00062
GoodwinG. F.BlacksmithN.CoatsM. R. (2018). The science of teams in the military: Contributions from over 60 years of research. American Psychologist, 73(4), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000259
53.
GopherD.DonchinE. (1986). Workload: An examination of the concept.
54.
GormanJ. C.DunbarT. A.GrimmD.GipsonC. L. (2017). Understanding and modeling teams as dynamical systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1), 1053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01053
55.
GormanJ.CookeN.WinnerJ. (2006). Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1312–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612788
56.
GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.WinnerJ. L. (2017). Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. In Situational awareness (pp. 183–196). Routledge.
57.
GreenleeE. T.FunkeG. J.RiceL. (2019). Evaluation of the Team Workload Questionnaire (TWLQ) in a team-choice task. Human Factors, 61(2), 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818801657
58.
GrierR.WickensC. D.KaberD.StrayerD.Boehm-DavisD.TraftonJ. G.St JohnM. (2008). The red-line of workload: Theory, research, and design. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 52(18), 1204–1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805201811
59.
GrimmD. A. P.GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.DemirM.McNeeseN. J. (2023). Dynamical measurement of team resilience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 17(4), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434231199729
60.
*GroteG.KolbeM.Zala-MezöE.Bienefeld-SeallN.KünzleB. (2010). Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics, 53(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903248819
61.
*GrugleN. L.KleinerB. M. (2007). Effects of chemical protective equipment on team process performance in small unit rescue operations. Applied Ergonomics, 38(5), 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.08.003
62.
*GuastelloS. J.Correro IIA. N.MarraD. E. (2018). Do emergent leaders experience greater workload? The swallowtail catastrophe model and changes in leadership in an emergency response simulation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 22(4), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000091
63.
*GuastelloS. J.Correro IIA. N.MarraD. E. (2019). Cusp catastrophe models for cognitive workload and fatigue in teams. Applied Ergonomics, 79(1), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.019
64.
*GuastelloS. J.MarraD. E. (2018). External validity and factor structure of individual and group workload ratings. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922x.2017.1356395
65.
*GuastelloS. J.MarraD. E.CorreroA. N.MichelsM.SchimmelH. (2017). Elasticity and rigidity constructs and ratings of subjective workload for individuals and groups. In International symposium on human mental workload: models and applications (pp. 51–76). Springer.
66.
*GuastelloS. J.MarraD. E.PernaC.CastroJ.GomezM.PeressiniA. F. (2016). Physiological synchronization in emergency response teams: Subjective workload, drivers and empaths. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 20(2), 223–270.
67.
*HahS.WillemsB.PhillipsR. (2006). The effect of air traffic increase on controller workload. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 50(1), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000111
68.
HalgasE. A.van EijndhovenK. H.GeversJ. M.WiltshireT. J.WesterinkJ. H. M.RispensS. (2023). A review of using wearable technology to assess team functioning and performance. Small Group Research, 54(1), 41–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221125717
69.
HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (1988). Human mental workload. Elsevier.
70.
HartS. G. (2006). Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909
71.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Elsevier.
72.
*HeltonW. S.EplingS.de JouxN.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A. (2015). Judgments of team workload and stress: A simulated unmanned aerial vehicle case. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 59(1), 736–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591173
73.
*HeltonW. S.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A. (2014). Measuring workload in collaborative contexts: Trait versus state perspectives. Human Factors, 56(2), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813490727
74.
HildebrandG. A.PharmerJ. A.WeaverM. D. (2003). Performance and usability evaluation of an automated task management concept prototype design. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 47(17), 1913–1917. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120304701703
75.
HindsP. J.BaileyD. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872
76.
*HuangF. H.HwangS.-L. (2009). Experimental studies of computerized procedures and team size in nuclear power plant operations. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 239(2), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.10.009
77.
HueyB. M.WickensC. D. (1993). Workload transition implications for individual and team performance. National Academy Press.
78.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT press.
79.
INCOSE. (2023). INCOSE systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
80.
*JobidonM.-E.BretonR.RousseauR.TremblayS. (2006). Team response to workload transition: The role of team structure. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 50(17), 1769–1773. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605001710
81.
JohnsonC. J. (2020). Communication networks and team workload in a command and control synthetic task environmentMaster's thesis. Arizona State University.
82.
JohnsonC. J. (2023). Team workload in action teams. Doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University.
83.
JohnsonC. J.GutzwillerR. S.HolderE.AmazeenP. G.CookeN. J. (2025). Exploring the relationship between team workload and communication in action teams. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 19(3), Article 15553434251328835. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434251328835
84.
JohnsonC. J.LieberC. S.GutzwillerR. S.CookeN. J. (2023). Team workload in action teams: Exploring the impact of interdependence. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society - Annual Meeting (Vol. 67, pp. 1127–1133): Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192281
85.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ. M.FeltovichP. J.JonkerC. M.Van RiemsdijkM. B.SierhuisM. (2014). Coactive design: Designing support for interdependence in joint activity. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.3.1.johnson
86.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ. M. (2021). How interdependence explains the world of teamwork. In Engineering artificially intelligent systems: A systems engineering approach to realizing synergistic capabilities (pp. 122–146). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
87.
*JohnstonJ. H.FioreS. M.ParisC.SmithC. (2013). Application of cognitive load theory to develop a measure of team cognitive efficiency. Military Psychology, 25(3), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094967
88.
KaziS.KhaleghzadeganS.DinhJ. V.ShelhamerM. J.SapirsteinA.GoeddelL. A.ChimeN. O.SalasE.RosenM. A. (2021). Team physiological dynamics: A critical review. Human Factors, 63(1), 32–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819874160
89.
KeeneA. B.ShilohA. L.EisenL.BergerJ.KarwaM.FeinD.OrsiD.GongM. (2021). Critical care surge during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implementation and feedback from frontline providers. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 36(2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066620973175
90.
*Kennedy-MetzL. R.WolfeH. L.DiasR. D.YuleS. J.ZenatiM. A. (2020). Surgery task load index in cardiac surgery: Measuring cognitive load among teams. Surgical Innovation, 27(6), 602–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620934931
91.
*KimJ. H.MachtG. A.LiS. (2012). Comparison of individual and team-based dynamic decision-making task (anti-air warfare coordinator): Consideration of subjective mental workload metacognition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 56(1), 2517–2521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561522
92.
KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810033001
93.
*KnottB. A.BoliaR. S.NelsonW. T.GalsterS. M. (2006). The impact of instant messaging on team performance, subjective workload, and situation awareness in tactical command and control. In 11th international command and control research and technology symposium.
94.
*KnottC. C.NelsonW. T.McCroskeyM. K.MillerB. T. (2007). Do you see what I see? Effects of communication on scanning strategies in change detection by individuals and teams of observers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 51(18), 1186–1190. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120705101828
95.
KozlowskiS. W.GullyS. M.McHughP. P.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 14(1), 253–306.
96.
*KrausmanA. S. (2017). Understanding audio communication delay in distributed team interaction: Impact on trust, shared understanding, and workload. In 2017 IEEE conference on cognitive and computational aspects of situation management (CogSIMA) (pp. 1–3). IEEE.
97.
*LeggattA. P.NoyesJ. M. (2000). Navigation aids: Effects on crew workload and performance. Military Psychology, 12(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1202_1
98.
*LeiZ.WallerM. J.HagenJ.KaplanS. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41(4), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115615246
99.
*LennéM. G.HogganB. L.FidockJ.StuartG.AidmanE. (2014). The impact of auditory task complexity on primary task performance in military land vehicle crew. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 58(1), 2185–2189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581459
100.
*LewisM.WangH.ChienS. Y.VelagapudiP.ScerriP.SycaraK. (2011). Process and performance in human-robot teams. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411409323
101.
*LigdaS. V.FischerU.MosierK.MatessaM.BattisteV.JohnsonW. W. (2015). Effectiveness of advanced collaboration tools on crew communication in reduced crew operations. In International conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (pp. 416–427). Springer.
102.
LimB. C.KleinK. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.387
103.
*LinC. J.HsiehT.-L.TsaiP.-J.YangC.-W.YennT.-C. (2011). Development of a team workload assessment technique for the main control room of advanced nuclear power plants. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 21(4), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20247
104.
*LiuM.ZhangY.ZhuC.LiZ. (2016). Influence of time delay on team performance in space robotic teleoperation. In International conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (pp. 189–197). Springer.
105.
*LowndesB. R.AbdelrahmanA. M.ThielsC. A.MohamedA. O.McConicoA. L.BingenerJ.HallbeckM. S. (2019). Surgical team workload comparison for 4-port and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures. Applied Ergonomics, 78(1), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.06.005
106.
MacMillanJ.PaleyM. J.EntinE. B.EntinE. E. (2004). Questionnaires for distributed assessment of team mutual awareness. In Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 510–520). CRC Press.
107.
*MacMillanJ.EntinE. E.SerfatyD. (2004). Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In Team cognition: Process and performance at the inter and intra-individual level. American Psychological Association.
108.
*MarquesM. S.CoelhoD. A.FilipeJ. N.NunesI. M. L. (2015). The expanded cognitive task load index (NASA-TLX) applied to team decision-making in emergency preparedness simulation. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society Europe chapter 2014 annual conference (pp. 225–236). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES).
109.
MathieuJ. E.LucianoM. M. (2019). Multilevel emergence in work collectives.
110.
*McCannC.BaranskiJ. V.ThompsonM. M.PigeauR. A. (2000). On the utility of experiential cross-training for team decision making under time stress. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1095–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130050084897
111.
*McKendrickR.ShawT.de VisserE.SaqerH.KidwellB.ParasuramanR. (2014). Team performance in networked supervisory control of unmanned air vehicles: Effects of automation, working memory, and communication content. Human Factors, 56(3), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813496269
112.
*McKendrickR.ShawT.SaqerH.de VisserE.ParasuramanR. (2011). Team performance and communication within networked supervisory control human-machine systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 55(1), 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551054
113.
MitchellD. K. (2009). Workload analysis of the crew of the Abrams V2 SEP: Phase I baseline IMPRINT model (ARL-TR 5028). Army Research Laboratory. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA508882.pdf
114.
MollemanE.SlompJ. (1999). Functional flexibility and team performance. International Journal of Production Research, 37(8), 1837–1858. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499191021
115.
Morrison-SmithS.RuizJ. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: A literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2(6), 1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5
116.
NaikarN. (2016). Work domain analysis: Concepts, guidelines, and cases. CRC Press.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2020). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors, 64(5), Article 0018720820960865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
119.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1518/155534308X284417
120.
ParkJ.ZhongX.DongY.BarwiseA.PickeringB. W. (2022). Investigating the cognitive capacity constraints of an ICU care team using a systems engineering approach. BMC Anesthesiology, 22(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01548-7
121.
*ParkerJ.BestC.FunkeG.StrangA.MarionK. (2016). An investigation of coding schemes for sample entropy analysis of communications data. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 60(1), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601025
122.
PharmerJ.CropperK.McKneelyJ.WilliamsE. (2004). Tactical tomahawk weapon control system v6 land attack combat system prototype human-computer interface. Naval Air Systems Command Orlando FL Training Systems Div.
123.
*PierceE.RapadaR.HerderP. A.LaPortaA. J.HoangT. N.PenaM.BlankenshipJ.KiserJ.CatlinS. A. (2018). Surgery at sea: The effect of simulated high sea states on surgical performance. Journal of Special Operations Medicine: A Peer Reviewed Journal for SOF Medical Professionals, 18(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.55460/EMQ7-ROZP
124.
*PlantK. L.StantonN. A. (2016). Distributed cognition in Search and Rescue: Loosely coupled tasks and tightly coupled roles. Ergonomics, 59(10), 1353–1376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1143531
125.
*PorterC. O.Itir GogusC.YuR. C.-F. (2010). When does teamwork translate into improved team performance? A resource allocation perspective. Small Group Research, 41(2), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409356319
126.
*PorterC. O.WebbJ. W.GogusC. I. (2010). When goal orientations collide: Effects of learning and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019637
127.
*PriestH. A.GuthrieJ.BurkeC. S.BowersC. A.SalasE. (2004). Are there differences in teamwork across team type?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 48(22), 2582–2586. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120404802215
128.
PuranikH.KoopmanJ.VoughH. C. (2020). Pardon the interruption: An integrative review and future research agenda for research on work interruptions. Journal of Management, 46(6), 806–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319887428
129.
Ramos-VillagrasaP. J.Marques-QuinteiroP.NavarroJ.RicoR. (2018). Teams as complex adaptive systems: Reviewing 17 years of research. Small Group Research, 49(2), 135–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417713849
130.
RobertsA. P. J.WebsterL. V.SalmonP. M.FlinR.SalasE.CookeN. J.ReadG. J.StantonN. A. (2021). State of science: Models and methods for understanding and enhancing teams and teamwork in complex sociotechnical systems. Ergonomics, 65(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.2000043
131.
*RobertsA. P. J.StantonN. A.FayD. (2017). Land ahoy! Understanding submarine command and control during the completion of inshore operations. Human Factors, 59(8), 1263–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817731678
132.
*RobertsA. P. J.StantonN. A.FayD. T. (2018). Go Deeper, Go Deeper: Understanding submarine command and control during the completion of dived tracking operations. Applied Ergonomics, 69(1), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.003
133.
*RobertsA. P. J.StantonN. A.FayD. T.PopeK. A. (2019). The effects of team co-location and reduced crewing on team communication characteristics. Applied Ergonomics, 81(1), Article 102875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102875
134.
*RothrockL.CohenA.YinJ.ThiruvengadaH.Nahum-ShaniI. (2009). Analyses of team performance in a dynamic task environment. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4), 699–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.06.004
135.
SalasE.FioreS. M. (Eds.), (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association.
*SanerL. D.BolstadC. A.GonzalezC.CuevasH. M. (2010). Predicting shared situation awareness in teams: A case of differential SA requirements. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 54(4), 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193121005400410
138.
*SebokA. (2000). Team performance in process control: Influences of interface design and staffing levels. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1210–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130050084950
139.
SellersJ.HeltonW. S.NäswallK.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A. (2014). Development of the team workload questionnaire (TWLQ). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 58(1), 989–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581207
140.
*SellersJ.HeltonW. S.NäswallK.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A. (2015). The Team Workload Questionnaire (TWLQ) A simulated unmanned vehicle task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1382–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591231
SiddawayA. P.WoodA. M.HedgesL. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
144.
*SperlingB. K.PritchettA. R. (2011). Complementary information distribution to improve team performance in military helicopter operations: An experimental study. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(4), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508414.2011.606756
145.
StantonN. A.StewartR.HarrisD.HoughtonR. J.BaberC.McMasterR.SalmonP.HoyleG.WalkerG.YoungM. S.LinsellM.DymottR.GreenD. (2006). Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: Theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1288–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612762
146.
*StantonN. A.RobertsA. P. J. (2020a). Better together? Investigating new control room configurations and reduced crew size in submarine command and control. Ergonomics, 63(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1654137
147.
*StantonN. A.RobertsA. P. J. (2020b). Block off: An examination of new control room configurations and reduced crew sizes examining engineered production blocking. Cognition, Technology & Work, 22(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00542-x
148.
*StantonN. A.RothrockL.HarveyC.SorensenL. (2015). Investigating information-processing performance of different command team structures in the NATO Problem Space. Ergonomics, 58(12), 2078–2100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1046499
149.
*StrangA. J.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A.GalsterS. M.RussellS. M. (2012). Effects of cross-training on team performance, communication, and workload in simulated air battle management. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1581–1585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561315
150.
*StrangA. J.HorwoodS.BestC.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A.RussellS. M. (2012). Examining temporal regularity in categorical team communication using sample entropy. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 56(1), 473–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561047
151.
StrauchB. (2017). Ironies of automation: Still unresolved after all these years. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(5), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2017.2732506
152.
SundstromE. D. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance (pp. 3–23). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
153.
*SvenssonE.RencrantzC.LindoffJ.BerggrenP.NorlanderA. (2006). Dynamic measures for performance assessment in complex environments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 50(24), 2585–2589. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605002415
154.
*Tollner-BurngasserA.RileyM. A.NelsonW. T. (2010). Individual and team susceptibility to change blindness. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 81(10), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.3357/asem.2809.2010
155.
*TollnerA. M.RileyM. A.NelsonW. T.ShockleyK. D.Cummins-SebreeS. (2006). Change blindness in teams: Are three pairs of eyes better than one?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 50(17), 1789–1793. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605001714
156.
*TremblayS.VachonF.LafondD.KramerC. (2012). Dealing with task interruptions in complex dynamic environments: Are two heads better than one?Human Factors, 54(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811424896
157.
TsangP. S.VidulichM. A. (2006). Mental workload and situation awareness. In Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 243–268). John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470048204.ch9
158.
UrbanJ. M.BowersC. A.MondayS. D.MorganJr, B. B. (1995). Workload, team structure, and communication in team performance. Military Psychology, 7(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp0702_6
159.
Van Den OeverF.SchraagenJ. M. (2021). Team communication patterns in critical situations. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 15(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343420986657
160.
*VashdiD. R.BambergerP. A.ErezM. (2013). Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 945–971. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0501
161.
*VerdièreK. J.DehaisF.RoyR. N. (2019). Spectral EEG-based classification for operator dyads’ workload and cooperation level estimation. In 2019 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 3919–3924). IEEE.
162.
WalkerG. H.GibsonH.StantonN. A.BaberC.SalmonP.GreenD. (2006). Event analysis of systemic teamwork (EAST): A novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i activity. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1345–1369. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612846
163.
*WalkerG. H.StantonN. A.SalmonP.JenkinsD. (2009). How can we support the commander’s involvement in the planning process? An exploratory study into remote and co-located command planning. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(2), 456–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.12.003
164.
WallerM. J.OkhuysenG. A.SaghafianM. (2016). Conceptualizing emergent states: A strategy to advance the study of group dynamics. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1120958
165.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S.GutzwillerR. S. (2022). Applied attention theory. CRC Press.
168.
WickensC. D.TsangP. S. (2015). Workload. In APA handbook of human systems integration (pp. 277–292). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14528-018
169.
WonJ. C.HannonD. J. (2013). Influence of resource allocation on teamwork and team performance within self-organizing teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 57(1), 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571060
170.
*WongJ. H.WrightH.OgrenL. (2014). Cognitive dynamics of distributed teams performing dynamic, complex tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 58(1), 2383–2387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581496
171.
WoodsD. D.HollnagelE. (2006). Joint cognitive systems: Patterns in cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press.
172.
*WrightM. C.KaberD. B. (2005). Effects of automation of information-processing functions on teamwork. Human Factors, 47(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720053653776
173.
*YangC.-W.YennT.-C.LinC. J. (2010). Assessing team workload under automation based on a subjective performance measure. Safety Science, 48(7), 914–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.03.011
174.
*YeeD. J.WigginsM. W.SearleB. J. (2020). Higher social cue utilisation improves communication, reduces perceived workload, and improves performance amongst ad hoc dyads in simulated rail control. Ergonomics, 63(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1680872
YoungM. S.StantonN. A.WalkerG. H.JenkinsD. P.SalmonP. M. (2007). Mental workload in command and control teams: Musings on the outputs of EAST and WESTT. In HarrisD. (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (pp. 455–464). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73331-7_50
177.
*ZhangY.LiZ. (2016). Effect of speech display on team mutual awareness and diagnosis performance. In International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 256–265). Springer.
178.
ZhangY.SheM.LiZ. (2023). Team workload: Review and conceptualization. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 95(3), 103452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2023.103452
