In this paper we present the promise of the Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) methodology, particularly abstraction hierarchy modeling, in the foster care domain. There is increasing interest in applying machine learning decision aids to foster care decision making, but that interest is accompanied by concerns that those aids may perpetuate systemic bias or be largely context-blind. Modeling the work conducted at different levels of the domain offers unique insights into where bias may enter the system as well as possible design implications for these future decision aids. This project models two major areas of work in the domain, management of individual cases and management of overall programs offered. These work areas are then considered in the first 3 levels of the abstraction hierarchy to display the promise that this model can hold for the domain in future work, particularly when supported with more naturalistic studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
116 ᵗʰ Congress Bill Profile H.R. 2702, Family First Transition and Support Act of 2019, Bill Profile. (2019). In.
2.
BiehalN.SinclairI.WadeJ. (2015). Reunifying abused or neglected children: Decision-making and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 107–118. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.014
3.
BoyasC. T. a. M. (2017). Predictive Analytics in Child Welfare: An Assessment of Current Efforts, Challenges, and Opportunities. Retrieved from
4.
CardenT.GoodeN.SalmonP. M. (2019). Accounting for memes in sociotechnical systems: extending the abstraction hierarchy to consider cognitive objects. Ergonomics, 62(7), 849–863. doi:10.1080/00140139.2019.1603403
5.
ChouldechovaA.Benavides-PradoD.FialkoO.VaithianathanR. (2018). A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. http://proceedings.mlr.press
6.
CouryB. G.SchulzeD. (2004). Using Fault Trees and Cognitive Work Analysis to Assess Human Actions in Aviation Accidents. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48(16), 19781982. doi:10.1177/154193120404801639
7.
DettlaffA. J.Christopher GrahamJ.HolzmanJ.BaumannD. J.FlukeJ. D. (2015). Development of an instrument to understand the child protective services decision-making process, with a focus on placement decisions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 24–34. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.007
8.
FeatherstonR.ShlonskyA.LewisC.LuongM.-L.DownieL.VogelA.. . . GalvinK. (2018). Interventions to Mitigate Bias in Social Work Decision-Making: A Systematic Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 29, 104973151881916. doi:10.1177/1049731518819160
9.
JiancaroT.JamiesonG. A.MihailidisA. (2014). Twenty Years of Cognitive Work Analysis in Health Care: A Scoping Review. Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making, 8(1), 3–22. doi:10.1177/1555343413488391
10.
McIlroyR. C.StantonN. A. (2011). Getting past first base: Going all the way with Cognitive Work Analysis. Applied ergonomics, 42(2), 358–370. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.006
11.
MunroE. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse Negl, 23(8), 745–758. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(99)00053-8
12.
PaudyalP.William WongB. L. (2018). Algorithmic Opacity: Making Algorithmic Processes Transparent through Abstraction Hierarchy. In (Vol. 62, pp. 192–196).
13.
RasmussenJ.PejtersenA. M.GoodsteinL. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering / Jens Rasmussen, Annelise Mark Pejtersen, L.P. Goodstein. New York: Wiley.
14.
ReadG. J. M.SalmonP. M.LennéM. G. (2012). From work analysis to work design: A review of cognitive work analysis design applications. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 368–372. doi:10.1177/1071181312561084
15.
ReadG. J. M.SalmonP. M.LennéM. G.StantonN. A. (2015). Designing sociotechnical systems with cognitive work analysis: putting theory back into practice. Ergonomics, 58(5), 822–851. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.980335
16.
RouseW. B.PennockM. J.OghbaieM.LiuC. (2017). Interactive visualizations for decision support: Application of Rasmussen’s abstraction-aggregation hierarchy. Applied ergonomics, 59(Pt B), 541–553. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.03.006
17.
StantonN. A.SalmonP. M.WalkerG. H.GreenD.AshleighM.BaberC. (2004). The role of the abstraction hierarchy in team performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48(20), 2421–2425. doi:10.1177/154193120404802010
18.
SureshH.GuttagJ. V. (2019). A Framework for Understanding Unintended Consequences of Machine Learning.
19.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work / Kim J. Vicente. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
VicenteK. J. (2002). Ecological Interface Design: Progress and Challenges. Human factors, 44(1), 62–78. doi:10.1518/0018720024494829
21.
WongW. B. L.SallisP. J.O’HareD. (1998). The ecological approach to interface design: applying the abstraction hierarchy to intentional domains. In (pp. 144151): IEEE.
22.
ZeijlmansK.López LópezM.GrietensH.KnorthE. J. (2019). Heuristic decision-making in foster care matching: Evidence from a think-aloud study. Child abuse & neglect, 88, 400–411. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.12.007
