Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

When designing Human Factors and Ergonomics evaluations, in addition to considering validity and reliability, it is important to ensure that measures and methodologies have utility for the chosen application. Ensuring utility requires consideration of domain specific aspects including practicality, feasibility, and access to users. The intention of this paper is to describe the process and outcome of deriving a series of considerations that can be used by Human Factors/Ergonomics practitioners when designing an evaluation of soldier clothing and equipment to help ensure that it is useful and practical for the dismounted domain. The aim is to help with dissemination of knowledge that is obtained by practitioners during their careers and forms a foundation that other practitioners can augment with their own experience.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Angel

H.A.

Donati

A.L.M.

(1993). Human Factors Aspects: Performance Based Specifications for Project L1939 CF Soldier’s Helmet. Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, CAN. Report number: DCIEM No.95–13.

Annett

(2002). Subjective Rating Scales – Science of Art?. Ergonomics, 45(14), 966–987.

Charlton

S.G.

(2010). Selecting Measures for Human Factors Tests. In Charlton

S.G.

O’Brien

T.G.

(eds.). Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation, CRC Press, 37–54.

Coca

Roberge

Shepard

Powell

J.B.

Stull

J.O.

Williams

W.J.

(2008). Ergonomic Comparison of a Chem/Bio Prototype Firefighter Ensemble and a Standard Ensemble. European Journal of Applied Physiology 104(2), 351–359.

DeLao

C.D.

Keeley

J.W.

(2015). Clinical Utility. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, 1-5.

Dickinson

N.F.

Houff

C.W

Woodward

C.L.

(1975). A Human Factors Engineering Compatibility Assessment of the DH-132 Helmet, Combat Vehicle Crewman (CVC). U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, U.S. Report Number: Technical Memorandum 27–75.

Lesko

L.J.

Zineh

Huang

S-M.

(2010). What is Clinical Utility and Why Should We Care?. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 88(6), 729–733.

McKenzie

D.M.

(1969). A Human Engineering Evaluation of the Combat Vehicle Crewmans’ Helmet T56-6. Human Engineering Laboratories, Aberdeen Research & Development Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Report number: Technical Memorandum 10–69.

Scheetz

H.A.

Corona

B.M.

Ellis

P.H.

Jones

R.D.

Randall

R.B.

(1973). Methods for Human Factors Evaluation of Ballistic Protective Helmets. U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Report number: Technical Memorandum 18-73 [AD-774 833].

10.

Smart

(2006). A Multi-Dimensional Model of Clinical Utility. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 18(5), 377–382.

11.

Van den Oord

M.H.A.H.

Steinman

Sluiter

J.K.

Frings-Dresen

M.H.W.

(2012). The Effect of an Optimised Optimal Helmet Fit on Neck Load and Neck Pain during Military Helicopter Flights. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 958–964

Dismounted Utility Considerations for Designing Human Factors and Ergonomics Evaluations of Soldier Clothing and Equipment

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References