In modern military organizations teamwork performance is central, yet the underlying factors contributing to such performance are debated. The purpose of this paper was to investigate how several known teamwork measures relate to a prior model of operator performance (Nählinder et al, 2004). This study expands this model to the team level and in the command and control domain. Specifically, this paper studies the relationship between individual and team workload measures, situation awareness measures, and performance measures in 18 two-person teams.
The study has two major findings: Firstly, the various team cognition measures statistically cluster into four meaningful concepts (workload, teamwork, situation awareness and performance).
Secondly, a Structural Equation Model indicates that the relationship between the various individual and team measures can be described in a model resembling the model found in previous studies (Nählinder et al, 2004). In particular, the results show that the general workload in the microworld study has a negative effect on both teamwork and situation awareness. Teamwork, in turn, also affects situation awareness, which has major impact on performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrehmerB. (2005). Micro-worlds and the circular relation between people and their environment. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6 (1), 73-93.
2.
BrehmerB.DörnerD. (1993). Experiments with Computer-simulated Microworlds: Escaping both the Narrow Straits of the Laboratory and the Deep Blue Sea of the Field Study. Computers in Human Behavior (9), 171-184.
3.
BrehmerB. (1987) System Design and the Psychology of Complex Systems. In (Eds.) RasmussenJ.ZundeP., Empirical Foundations of Information and Software Science, New York: Plenum Publishing Cooperation.
4.
BrehmerB.SvenmarckP. (1994) Distributed Decision Making in Dy-namic Environments: Time Scales and Architectures of Decision Mak-ing. In (Eds.) CaverniJ. P.Bar-HillelM.BarronF. H.Junger-mannH., Contributions to decision making, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
5.
CookeN. J.GormanJ. C.WinnerJ. L. (2007). Team cognition. In DursoF. T.NickersonR. S.DumaisS. T.LewandowskyS.PerfectT. J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed.). (pp. 239-268). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
6.
EndsleyM.GarlandD. (Eds.). (2000). Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
7.
GranlundR. (1998) Micro-world Systems for Emergency Management Training. In (Ed.) WaernY.Co-operative process management: Cognition and Information Technology. London: Taylor & Francis.
8.
GranlundR. (2002) Monitoring Distributed Teamwork Training. Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, No 746, Linköping University, Linköping.
9.
HansbergerJ. T.SchreiberC.SpainR. D. (2008). C2 Network Analysis: Insights into Coordination & Understanding. 13th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Bellevue, WA, June 2008.
10.
HartS. G. (2006). NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting Proceedings. San Fransisco, CA, October 2006.
11.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of a Multidimensional Workload Rating Scale: Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN., Human Mental Workload, 139-183, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
12.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in The Wild. London, England: MIT Press.
13.
JöreskogK.SörbomD. (1998). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Hove: SSI Scientific Software International.
14.
KleinG.OrasanuJ.CalderwoodR.ZsambokC. E. (1993). Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
LawsonJ. S. (1981). Command and Control as a Process. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 1 (1), 5-16.
16.
LövborgL.BrehmerB. (1991) Newfire: a flexible system for running simulated fire-fighting experiments, Report RisoeM-2953, Risoe National Laboratory, Roskilde.
17.
MacMillanJ.PaleyM. J.EntinE. B.EntinE. E. (2005). Questionnaires for Distributed Assessment of Team Mutual Awareness. In StantonN. A.HedgeA.BrookhuisK.SalasE.HendricksH., Handbook of Human Factors Methods. London: Taylor and Francis.
18.
McGuinnessB. (1999). Situation Awareness and the Crew Awareness Rating Scale (CARS). Proceedings of the 1999 Avionics Conference. Heathrow, London, 17th-18th November.
19.
McGuinnessB.FoyL. (2000). A subjective measure of SA: the Crew Awareness Rating Scale (CARS). Presented at the Human Performance, Situational Awareness and Automation Conference
20.
NählinderS.BerggrenP. (2002). Dynamic Assessment of Operator Status. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the HFES 2002 Conference., Baltimore, MD, USA.
21.
NählinderS.BerggrenP.SvenssonE. (2004). Reoccuring LISREL patterns describing mental workload, situation awareness and performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics society 48th Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA.
22.
OmodeiM.McLennanJ.ElliottG. C.WearingA. J.ClancyJ. M. (2004) “More Is Better”: A Bias Toward Overuse of Resources in Naturalistic Decision-Making Settings. In (Eds.) MontgomeryH.LipshitzR.BrehmerB.How Professionals Make Decisions, Mahaw, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum,.
23.
ParasuramanR.ShreidanT. 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.
24.
RileyJ. M.EndsleyM. R.BolstadC. A.CuevasH. M. (2006). Collaborative planning and situation awareness in Army command and control. Ergonomics, 49 (12-13), 1139-1153.
25.
SalasE.FioreS. M. (Eds.). (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Assoc.
26.
SalasE.DickinsonT. L.ConverseS. A.TannenbaumS. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In SweezyR.SalasW. E. (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
SchreiberJ. b.NoraA.StageF. K.BarlowE. A.KingJ. (2006). Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (6), 323-338.
29.
SvenssonE.WilsonG. F. (2002). Psychological and Psychophysiological Models of Pilot Performance for Systems Development and Mission Evaluation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(1), 95-110.
30.
SvenssonE.Angelborg-ThanderzM.SjöbergL. (1993). Mission Challenge, Mental Workload and Performance in Military Aviation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine (64), 98-991.
31.
SvenssonE.Angelborg-ThanderzM.SjöbergL.OlssonS. (1997). Information complexity - mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics, 40(3), 362-380.
32.
SvenssonE.Angelborg-ThanderzM.van AvermaeteJ. A. G.BohnenH.ZonR. (1997). Dynamic Measures of Pilot Mental WorkLoad (PMWL), Pilot Performance (PP); and Situational Awareness (SA) (VINTHEC Technical Report No. VINTHEC-WP3-TR 01).
