This paper presents a theoretical analysis of how manipulation of work load effects task performance as measured by accuracy scores. The analysis is based on a central assumption of human performance theory: the assumption of limited cognitive resources. It is shown that the addition of an individual differences postulate to this theory makes it possible to derive a class of mathematical models that allows precise predictions of response accuracy as a function of cognitive work load (task parameter) and available resources (subject parameter).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BockR.D.LiebermanM. (1970). Fitting a response model for dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35, 179–198.
2.
BockR.D.AitkinM. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.
3.
DraycottS.G.KlineP. (1996). Validation of the AGARD STRES Battery of Performance Tests. Human Factors, 38, 2, 347–361.
4.
FischerG.H.MolenaarI.W. (1996). Rasch Models: Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications. New York: Springer Verlag.
5.
HamiltonR.K.SwaminathanH.RogersH.J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
HosmerD.W.LemeshowS. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley's & Son.
7.
IppelM.J. (1986). Component-testing. A theory of cognitive aptitude measurement. Amsterdam: Free University Press.
8.
IppelM.J. (1991). An Information-Processing Approach to Item Equivalence. In DannP.L.IrvineS.H.CollisJ. (Eds.). Advances in Computer-Based Human Assessment. Dordrecht, NL.: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
9.
KahnemanD., Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
10.
KantowitzB.H. (1985). Channels and Stages in Human Information Processing: A Limited Analysis of Theory and Methodology. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 135–174.
11.
LansmanM.HuntE. (1982). Individual Differences in Secondary TaaskPerformance. Memory and Cognition, 10, 10–24.
12.
LohmanD.F.IppelM.J. (1993). Cognitive Diagnosis: From Statistically Based Toward Theory-Based Assessment. In FrederiksenN.MislevyR.J.BejarI. (Eds.). Test Theory for a New Generation of Tests. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
13.
LordF.M. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
14.
MolenaarI.W. (1996). Some Background for Item-Response Theory and the Rasch Model. In FischerG.H.MolenaarI.W. (Eds.). Rasch Models: Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications. New York: Springer Verlag.
15.
NavonD.GopherD. (1979). On the economy of the human processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 3, 214–255.
NewellA.SimonH.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice-Hall.
18.
NormanD.A.BobrowD.J. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.
19.
StankovL. (1987). Competing Task and Attentional Resources: Exploring the Limits of Primary-Secondary Paradigm. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39, 2, 123–137.
20.
SternbergS., (1969). Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction time experiments. American Scientist, 57, 421–457.
21.
Van der LindenW.J.HambletonR.K. (1996). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
