This study was designed to examine the influence of signal probability on detection accuracy in a quality control task patterned after the checking of prescriptions in a pharmacy. Signal probability was defined as the ratio of erroneous scripts to correct scripts. 91 participants were either exposed to signal probabilities ranging from 26 to 30% (“low probability”) or 34 to 38% (“high probability”) while checking two sets of 40 simulated scripts for accuracy. Wrong item, wrong number, and wrong label information errors were possible, and performance was measured in terms of sensitivity (percentage of errors detected) and specificity (percentage of correct orders accepted) Analysis indicated that sensitivity was significantly worse for participants in the high signal probability condition, but specificity was not significantly different between signal probability conditions. Connections to existing theory and future directions for research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllanE. L.BarkerK. N.MalloyM. J.HellerW. M. (1995) Dispensing errors and counseling in community practice. American Pharmacy, 12, 25–33.
2.
AndersonK. J.RevelleW. (1982) Impulsivity, caffeine, and proofreading: a test of the Easterbrook hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 614–624.
3.
BisseretA. (1981) Application of signal detection theory to decision making in supervisory control: the effect of the operator's experience. Ergonomics, 24, 81–94.
4.
CohenM. R. (Ed.) (1999) Medication errors. Washington, DC: American Pharmaceutical Association.
5.
CorbinG. B.SchellK. L. (2003) Task motivation and signal probabilities in a complex quality control task. Unpublished thesis, Angelo State Univer.
6.
DaviesD. R.ParasuramanR. (1982) The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.
7.
FilburnJ.GrashaA. F.ReilleyS.PalazzoloM. (2000) The use of visual cues to reduce product-selection errors in a simulated pharmacy task. Poster presented at the American Psychological Society conference, Miami, FL, June.
8.
GrashaA. F. (1995) The role of cognitive processes in dispensing errors: a conceptual analysis. (Technical Report 0395-1-93) Cincinnati, OH: Institute for Consultation and Training, Univer. of Cincinnati.
9.
GrashaA. F. (2000) Into the abyss: seven principles for managing error in complex systems. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy, 57, 554–564.
10.
GrashaA. F.O'NeillM. (1996) Cognitive processes in medication errors. US Pharmacist, 9, 96–109.
11.
GrashaA. F.ReilleyS.SchellK. L.TranumD.FilburnJ. (2000) A cognitive systems perspective on human performance in the pharmacy: implications for accuracy, effectiveness, and job satisfaction. (Technical Report 062100-R, 1-170) Cincinnati, OH: Cognitive-Systems Performance Laboratory, Univer. of Cincinnati.
12.
GrashaA. F.SchellK. (1998) The role of intrapersonal, interpersonal, task, and extra-organizational factors on dispensing errors. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC: June.
13.
GrashaA. F.SchellK. L. (1999) Psychosocial factors and time-accuracy functions in a simulated pharmacy. Paper presented at American Psychological Association annual meetings, Boston, MA, August.
14.
GrashaA. F.SchellK. L.ReilleyS.TranumD. (1999) Correcting human error in the prescription process: initial findings of a national research study. Keynote presentation at the annual meetings of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, San Diego, CA, August.
15.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1974) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford, UK: Robert E. Kreiger.
16.
MatthewsG.DesmondP. A. (2001) Stress and driving performance: implications for design and training. In HancockP. A.DesmondP. A. (Eds.), Stress, workload and fatigue. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 211–231.
17.
MatthewsG.JonesD. M.ChamberlainA. G. (1992) Predictors of individual differences in mail-coding skills and their variation with ability level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 406–418.
18.
ParasuramanA. (1985) Sustained attention: a multifactorial approach. In PosnerM.MarinO. S. M. (Eds.), Attention and performance: XI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 25–48.
19.
ReilleyS.GrashaA. F.SchaferJ. (2001) Effects of workload, mood, and perceived stress on error detection in a simulated pharmacy verification task. (Technical Report 4-1299) Cincinnati, OH: Cognitive Systems Performance Laboratory.
20.
SchellK. L.BlackJ.HavensS.NealK.OremD. (2003) Workload shifts and performance in a complex quality control task. (Technical Report 0703-01) San Angelo, TX: Human Performance Laboratory, Angelo State Univer.
21.
SchellK. L.GrashaA. F. (2000) State anxiety, performance accuracy and work pace in a simulated pharmacy dispensing task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 547–561.
22.
SchellK. L.GrashaA. F. (2001) Interactive effects of gender and psychosocial interventions on work pace and accuracy in a self-paced product construction task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 879–898.
23.
SchellK. L.WoodruffA.CorbinB.BilsingL.MeltonE. (2002) Detecting incorrect information in a simulated product verification task: the impact of traits and states. (Technical report) San Angelo, TX: Human Performance Laboratory, Angelo State Univer.
24.
SwetsJ. A.PickettR. M. (1982) The evaluation of diagnostic systems. New York: Academic Press.
25.
WickensC. D. (1992) Engineering psychology and human performance. (2nd ed.) New York: HarperCollins.
26.
WilligesR. C. (1969) Within session criterion changes compared to an ideal observer criterion in a visual monitoring task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 61–66.
27.
WilligesR. C. (1973) Manipulating the response criterion in visual monitoring. Human Factors, 15, 179–185.
