A command and control environment is a dynamic and complex setting with complicated technical systems where teams of operators interact to reach shared goals. This study presents an experiment in which we, by means of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), explain the relations between basic concepts of command and control environments: mental workload, frustration, situational awareness, and performance. This paper reports a LISREL analysis of the Baroutsi, Berggren, Nählinder, & Johansson (2013) data. From that data, a new latent variable “Frustration” emerges, which now can be included in the model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaroutsiN.BerggrenP.NählinderS.JohanssonB. (2013). Training teams to collaborate as cohesive units: Technical report nr FOI-R--3830—S. Linköping: FOI.
2.
BealD. J.CohenR. R.BurkeM. J.McLendonC. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.
3.
BerggrenP.NählinderS.SvenssonE. (2014). Assessing Command and Control Effectiveness – Dealing with a changing world. Ashgate: Farnham.
4.
BerggrenP.PrytzE.JohanssonB.NählinderS. (2011). The Relationship Between Workload, Teamwork, Situation Awareness, and Performance in Teams: A Microworld Study. In Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th annual meeting. Las Vegas, Nevada.
5.
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(2), 171-184.
6.
FullagarC. J.EglestonD. O. (2008). Norming and Performing : Using Microworlds to Understand the Relationship Between Team Cohesiveness and Performance 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2574–2593.
7.
GranlundR. (2002). Monitoring Distributed Teamwork Training. Ph.D. Thesis at Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Sweden, 2002.
8.
GranlundR.JohanssonB.PerssonM. (2001). C3Fire a Micro-world for Collaboration Training in the ROLF environment. Paper presented at the SIMS 2001, the 42nd Conference on Simulation and Modelling, Simulation in Theory and Practice. Porsgrunn, Norway.
9.
HartS. G. (2006). Nasa-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting Proceedings. San Fransisco, CA.
10.
HollnagelE. (1998). Context, cognition and control. In (Ed.) WaernY.Cooperation in process management – cognition and information technology. Taylor & Francis: London.
11.
JöreskogK.SörbomD. (1993). LISREL: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates, Inc: Hillsdale.
12.
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. Taylor and Francis: London.
13.
MathieuJ.MaynardM. T.RappT.GilsonL. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.
14.
McGuinnesB.FoyL. (2000). A subjective measure of SA: the Crew Awareness Rating Scale (CARS). In The Human Performance, Situational Awareness an Automation Conference.
15.
MohammedS.FerzandiL.HamiltonK. (2010). Metaphor No More: A 15-Year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910.
16.
NählinderS.BerggrenP.SvenssonE. (2004). Reoccurring LISREL patterns describing mental workload, situation awareness and performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.
17.
PrytzE.BerggrenP.JohanssonB. (2010). Performance and shared understanding in mixed C2-systems (Scientific report No. FOI-R--3155--SE). Linköping: FOI.
18.
WildmanJ. L.SalasE.ScottC. P. R. (2013). Measuring Cognition in Teams: A Cross-Domain Review. Human Factors, Online, 1–31.
