The present study examined the utility of the Subjective Workload Dominance (SWORD) technique as a projective workload tool. Two groups predicted the workload associated with using six possible head-up display (HUD) formats. One group contained college students inexperienced with HUDs, and the second group contained operational F-16 pilots who commonly used HUD displays but were familiar with only one format. The projective ratings from these groups were correlated with retrospective ratings from a group of operational F-16 pilots that had experienced all six formats in a simulator study. The correlation between the projective and retrospective groups of pilots was highly positive, and both groups′ ratings correlated positively with the simulator study performance. In contrast, the student ratings were not significantly correlated with the ratings from either of the other groups, nor was performance. The results support the utility of the SWORD technique as a projective tool, provided a group of subject matter experts is available to make the required judgments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Budescu, D. V., Zwick, R., and Rapoport, A. (1986). A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric means procedure for ratio scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 69–78.
2.
Bums, R. K. (1990. April). An evaluation of the F-16 instrument landing system landing display (Tech. Report ASOTR-90-5001). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aeronautical Systems Division.
3.
Eggleston, R. G., and Quinn, T. J. (1984). A preliminary evaluation of a projective workload assessment procedure. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting (pp. 695–699). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
4.
Ercoline, W. R., Gillingham, K. K., Greene, F. A., and Previc, F. H. (1989). Effects of variations in head-up display pitch-ladder representation of orientation recognition. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1401–1405). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
5.
Gawron, V. J., Schiflett, G. G., and Miller, J. C. (1989). Measures of in-flight workload. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.), Aviation psychology (pp. 240–287). Aldershot, England: Gower.
6.
Gopher, D., and Braune, R. (1984). On the psychophysics of workload: Why bother with subjective measures?Human Factors, 26, 519–532.
7.
Gopher, D., Chillag, N., and Arzi, N. (1985. February). The influence of voluntary effort, context, and anchor task on the subjective estimate of load (Tech. Report FY-84). Haifa, Israel: Research Center for Work Safety and Human Engineering.
8.
Hart, S. G., and Staveland, L. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9.
Iavecchia, H. P., Linton, P. M., Bittner, A. C., and Byers, J. C. (1989). Operator workload in the UH-60A Black Hawk: Crew results vs. TAWL model predictions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1481–1485). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
10.
Kantowitz, B. H., and Casper, P. A. (1988). Human workload in aviation. In E. L. Wiener and D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 157–187). San Diego: Academic.
11.
Kirkam, W. R., Collins, W. E., Grape, P. M., Simpson, J. M., and Wallace, T. F. (1978). Spatial disorientation in general aviation accidents. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 49, 1080–1086.
12.
Lidderdale, I. G. (1987). Measurement of aircrew workload during low-level flight. In A. H. Roscoe (Ed.), AGAR-Dograph No. 282-The practical assessment of pilot workload (pp. 78–82). Lougton, England: Advisoryn Group for Aerospace Research & Development.
13.
Lysaght, R. J., Hill, S. G., Dick, A. O., Plamondon, B. D., Linton, P. M., Wierwille, W. W., Zaklad, A. L., Bittner, A. C., and Wherry, R. J. (1989. June). Operator workload: Comprehensive review and evaluation of operator workload methodologies (Tech. Report 851). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
14.
McCarthy, G. W. (1988). Human factors in F-16 mishaps. U.S.A.F. Flying Safety Magazine, 5, 17-21.
15.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
16.
Newman, R. (1980). Operational problems associated with head-up displays during instrument flight (Tech. Report AFAMRL-TR-80-116). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Lab.
17.
Pearson, J. (1989). USAFE flight safety mishap analysis. In AirScoop: Special edition, the ops factor (The USAFE Safety Publication 127–3, pp. 4–12). Ramstein, Germany: U.S. Air Force, Europe Headquarters (USAFE/SE).
18.
Reid, G. B., and Nygren, T. E. (1988). The Subjective Workload Assessment Technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. In P. A. Hancock and
19.
N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
20.
Reid, G. B., Shingledecker, C. A., Hockenberger, R. L., and Quinn, T. J. (1984). A projective application of the Subjective Workland Assessment Technique. In Proceedings of the IEEE 1984 National Aerospace Electronics Conference-NAECON 1984 (pp. 824–826). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
21.
Reising, J. M., Zenyuh, J. P., and Barthelemy, K. (1988). Head-up display symbology for unusual attitude recovery. In Proceedings of the 1988 IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference-NAECON 1988 (pp. 926–930). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
22.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Tsang, P. S., and Vidulich, M. A. (1989). Cognitive demands of automation in aviation. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.), Aviation psychology (pp. 66–95). Aldershot, England: Gower.
24.
Vidulich, M. A. (1989). The use of judgment matrices in subjective workload assessment: The Subjective WORkload Dominance (SWORD) technique. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1406–1410). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
25.
Vidulich, M. A., and Tsang, P. S. (1987). Absolute magnitude estimation and relative judgment approaches to subjective workload assessment. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 1057–1061). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
26.
Vidulich, M. A., and Tsang, P. S. (in press). Evaluating immediacy and redundancy in subjective workload techniques. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Manual Control.
27.
Ward, G. F., and Hassoun, J. (1990. July). The effects of head-up display (HUD) pitch ladder articulation, pitch number location and horizon line length on unusual attitude recoveries for the F-16 (Tech. Report ASD-TR-90-5008). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Crew Station Evaluation Facility.
28.
Wickens, C. D., Larish, I., and Contorer, A. (1989). Predictive performance models and multiple task performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 96–100). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
29.
Williams, C., and Crawford, G. (1980. May). Analysis of subjective judgment matrices (Tech. Report R-2572-AF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
30.
Zenyuh, J. P., Reising, J. M., McClain, J. E., Barbato, D. J., and Hartsock, D. C. (1987). Advanced head-up display (HUD) symbology: Aiding unusual attitude recovery. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31 st Annual Meeting (pp. 1067–1071). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
