A Dyadic Protocol for Training Complex Skills: A Replication Using Female Participants

Abstract

The effectiveness and efficiency of the active interlocked modeling (AIM) dyadic protocol in training complex skills has been extensively demonstrated. However, past evaluation studies have all used male participants exclusively. Consequently, the present study investigated the generalizability of the effectiveness and efficiency gains to women. We randomly assigned 108 female participants to either the AlM-dyad condition or a standard individual control training condition. The results supported the robustness and viability of the AIM protocol. Although their overall performance was lower than that obtained for men in previous studies, women trained in the AIM-dyad condition performed as well as those trained in the individual condition. Thus, the efficiency gains associated with the AIMdyad protocol, which result from the ability to train two people simultaneously to reach the same performance level as a single person with no increase in training time or machine cost, are generalizable to female participants. The applied and basic research implications of the present study are discussed within the context of well-documented male/female differences in the performance of complex psychomotor tasks. For instance, given the number of women entering the workforce and the significant proportion of women in professions previously deemed to be male-dominated (e.g., air navigation), it is reassuring to know that sex differences in task performance do not necessarily imply sex differences in the effectiveness of training protocols.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arthur, W., Jr. , Day, E. A. , Bennett, W., Jr. , McNelly, T. L. , & Jordan, J. A. (1997). Dyadic versus individual training protocols: Loss and reacquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 783–791.

Arthur, W., Jr. , Strong, M. H. , Jordan, J. A. , Williamson, J. E. , Shebilske, W. L. , & Regian, J. W. (1995). Visual attention: Individual differences in training and predicting complex task performance. Acta Psychologica, 88, 3–23.

Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–232.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Dalton, D. W. (1990). The effects of cooperative learning strategies on achievement and attitudes during interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 8–16.

Fennema, E. , & Peterson, P. L. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of sex-related differences in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 309–311.

Funk, J. B. , & Buchman, D. D. (1996). Children's perceptions of gender differences in social approval for playing electronic games. Sex Roles, 35, 219–232.

Galea, L. A. M. , & Kimura, D. (1993). Sex differences in routelearning. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 53–65.

Gopher, D. (1993). The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies. In D. Meyer & S. Korenblom (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 229–322. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Gouchie, C. , & Kimura, D. (1991). The relationship between testosterone levels and cognitive ability patterns. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16, 323–334.

11.

Jordan, J. A. (1997). The effectiveness of individual and dyadic training protocols for complex skill acquisition in Space Fortress: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

12.

Kaas, S. J. , Ahlers, R. H. , & Dugger, M. (1998). Eliminating gender differences through practice in an applied visual spatial task. Human Performance, 11, 337–349.

13.

Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American, 267, 119–125.

14.

Maccoby, E. E. , & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

15.

Mane, A. , & Donchin, E. (1989). The Space Fortress game. Acta Psychologica, 71, 17–22.

16.

McCloy, T. M. , & Koonce, J. M. (1982). Sex as a moderator variable in the selection and training of persons for a skilled task. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 53, 1170–1172.

17.

McClure, R. F. , & Mears, F. G. (1984). Video game players: Personality characteristics and demographic variables. Psychological Reports, 55, 271–276.

18.

Nyborg, H. (1983). Spatial ability in men and women: Review and new theory. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 5, 89–140.

19.

Paulus, L. E. (1999). Dyadic protocols and the acquisition of complex skills. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

20.

Peters, M. , & Campagnaro, P. (1996). Do women really excel over men in manual dexterity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1107–1112.

21.

Shebilske, W. L. , Goettl, B. , & Regian, J. W. (1999). Individual and group protocols for training complex skills in laboratory and applied settings. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 401–432. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Shebilske, W. L. , Regian, J. W. , Arthur, W., Jr. , & Jordan, J. A. (1992). A dyadic protocol for training complex skills. Human Factors, 34, 369–374.

23.

Shute, V. J. , Pellegrino, J. W. , Hubert, L. , & Reynolds, R. W. (1983). The relationship between androgen levels and human spatial abilities. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 465–468.

24.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1996 (116th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

25.

U.S. Department of Defense. (1996, December). Military manpower, statistics quarterly. Washington, DC: Congressional Information Service.