The Reliability and Validity of Flight Task Workload Ratings

Abstract

Twelve instrument-rated general aviation pilots each flew two scenarios in a motion-base simulator. During each flight, the pilots verbally estimated their workload every three minutes. Following each flight, they again estimated workload for each flight segment and also rated their overall workload, perceived performance, and 13 specific factors on a bipolar scale. The results indicate that time (a priori, inflight, or postflight) of eliciting ratings, period to be covered by the ratings (a specific moment in time or a longer period), type of rating scale, and rating method (verbal, written, or other) may be important variables. Overall workload ratings appear to be predicted by different specific scales depending upon the situation, with activity level the best predictor. Perceived performance seems to bear little relationship to observer-rated performance when pilots rate their overall performance and an observer rates specific behaviors. Perceived workload and performance also seem unrelated.