Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The validity of three projective workload techniques-magnitude estimation, equal appearing intervals, and the subjective workload assessment technique (SWAT)- was examined using a simple laboratory task. Ratings of workload by subjects who received only written and verbal descriptions of the task (projective group) were compared to ratings from subjects who performed the task (experimental group). Results indicated that, for all rating scale techniques, subjects were able to validly project ratings of workload. Magnitude estimation possessed a higher degree of correspondence between both groups than the other two scales. This finding offers workload researchers involved with system predesign considerations more options in the choice of an appropriate projective workload metric.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Borg

(1978). Subjective aspects of physical and mental load. Ergonomics, 21, 215–220.

Eggleston

R.G.

(1984). Acomparison of projected and measured workload ratings using the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT). Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON), Dayton. Ohio, pp. 827–831.

Hicks

T.G.

Wierwille

W.W.

(1979). A comparison of five mental workload assessment procedures in a moving-base driving simulator. Human Factors, 21, 129–143.

Kuperman

G.G.

(1985). Projective application of the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique to advanced helicopter crew system designs. (AFAMRL-TR-85–014). Air Force Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Reid

G.B.

Shingledecker

C.A.

Eggemeier

F.T.

(1981). Application of conjoint measurement to workload scale development. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-25th Annual Meeting, pp. 522–526.

An Examination of Projective versus Post-Task Subjective Workload Ratings for Three Psychometric Scaling Techniques

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References