The utility of the Multiple Resources Questionnaire (MRQ) as a workload index in vigilance was assessed by comparing the sensitivity of the scale to that of the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) in response to challenges provided by variations in task-type and operating environment. Both instruments showed that global workload was high and that it was greater in the context of Successive (absolute judgment) as compared to Simultaneous (comparative judgment) type tasks. In addition, the MRQ indicated that workload was greater when observers operated in a multi-task as compared to a single-task environment, a dimension to which the NASA-TLX was not sensitive. The MRQ added to diagnosticity in the workload picture by identifying information-processing resources utilized across experimental conditions and sets of resources that were condition specific, resources not encompassed by the NASA-TLX. The results of this study indicate that the MRQ can be of effective value in measuring the workload imposed by vigilance tasks
BolesD. B. (1998, October). Multiple lateralized spatial processes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Dallas, TX.
3.
BolesD.B.BurskJ.H.PhillipsJ.B.PerdelwitzJ.R. (2007). Predicting dual-task performance with the multiple resources questionnaire. Human Factors, 49, 32–45.
4.
BolesD. B.LawM. B. (1998). A simultaneous task comparison of differentiated and undifferentiated hemispheric resource theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 204–215.
5.
CaggianoD. M.ParasuramanR. (2004). The role of memory representation in the vigilance decrement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 932–937.
6.
DavisD. R.ParasuramanR. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.
7.
FarmerE.BrownsonA. (2003). Review of workload measurement, analysis and interpretation methods. Brussels: European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol): Report for Eurocontrol Integra Program.
8.
FinomoreV. S.ShawT. H.WarmJ. S.MatthewsG.RileyM. A.BolesD. B.WeldonD. (2008). Workload of sustained attention: Further evaluation of the multiple resource questionnaire. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52, 1209–1213.
9.
FinomoreV.S.WarmJ.S.MatthewsG.RileyM.A.DemberW.N.ShawT.H., et al. (2006). Measuring the workload of sustained attention. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 1614–1618.
10.
FrankmannJ. P.AdamsJ. A. (1962). Theories of vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, 59, 257–272.
11.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN., Human mental workload. (pp. 139–183). Oxford, UK: North-Holland.
12.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
MatthewsG.DaviesD. R.WestermanS. J.StammersR. B. (2000). Human performance: Cognition, stress, and individual differences. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
15.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1996). Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: Vigilance and task complexity effects. Human Factors, 38, 311–322.
17.
NachreinerF.HaneckeK. (1992). Vigilance. In SmithA. P.JonesD. M.Handbook of human performance (pp. 262–288). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
O'DonnellR. D.EggemeierF. T. (1986). Workload assessment methodology. In BoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P., Handbook of perception and human performance, vol. 2: Cognitive processes and performance. (pp. 41–1–42–49). New York: Wiley.
20.
SeeJ. E.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N.HoweS. R. (1997). Vigilance and signal detection theory: An empirical evaluation of five measures of response bias. Human Factors, 39, 14–29.
21.
ShingledeckerC.WeldonD.BehymerK.SimpkinsB.LernerE.WarmJ.SMatthewsG.FinomoreV.S.ShawT. H.MurphyJ. (in press). Measuring vigilance abilities to enhance combat identification performance. In AndrewsD. H.HullT., Human factors issues in combat identification. Alsershot, UK: Ashgate.
22.
WarmJ. S. (1993). Vigilance and target detection. In WickensC. D.HueyB., Teams in transition: Workload, stress, and human factors (pp. 139–170). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
23.
WarmJ. S.DemberW. N. (1998). Tests of a vigilance taxonomy. In HoffmanR. R.SherrickM. F.WarmJ.S.Viewing psychology as a whole: The integrative science of William N. Dember (pp. 87–112). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24.
WarmJ. S.JerisonH. J. (1984). The psychophysics of vigilance. In WarmJ. S., Sustained attention in human performance (pp. 15–59). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
25.
WarmJ. S.MatthewsG.FinomoreV. S. (2008). Workload, stress, and vigilance. In HancockP.A.SzalmaJ. L., Performance under stress (pp. 115–141). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
26.
WarmJ.S.MatthewsG.ParasuramanR. (2009). Cerebral hemodynamics and vigilance performance, Military Psychology, 21, S75–S100.
27.
WarmJ. S.ParasuramanR.MatthewsG. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441.
28.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
