The point is made that in the absence of other human performance data sources, the use of subjective estimates is justifiable and, even more, necessary. The most common methods of eliciting these estimates are described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ComerM.K.SeaverD.A.StillwellW.G.GaddyC.D.Generating human reliability estimates using expert judgment, Vol. 1, Main report. NUREG/CR-3688, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., November 1984.
2.
EmbreyD.E.HumphreysP.RosaE.A.KirwanB.ReaK.SLIM-MAUD: An approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgment, Vol. I: Overview of SLIM-MAUD. NUREG/CR-3518, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C, March 1984.
3.
MeisterD.Human Factors Testing and Evaluation.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1986.
4.
MeisterD.Conceptual Aspects of Human Factors. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press (in press).
5.
MungerS.J.SmithR.W.PayneD.An index of electronic operability: Data Store. Report AIR-C43-1/62-RP (1), American Institute for Research, Pittsburgh, PA, January, 1962.
6.
SeaverD.A.StillwellW.G.Procedures for using expert judgment to estimate human error probabilities in nuclear power plant operations. Report NUREG/CR-2743, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 1983.
7.
StillwellW.G.SeaverD.ASchwartzJ.P.Expert estimation of human error problems in nuclear power plant operations: a re-view of probability assessment and scaling. Report NUREG/CR-2255, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 1982.
8.
SwainA.D.GuttmanH.E.Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Report NUREG/CR-1278, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C, October, 1983. (See Chapter 8 in particular.).
