ABSTRACT
Objective, easy to use, easy to comprehend, high face-validity assessment methods for measuring shared awareness in teams are hard to find. This paper describes an experiment where a new measure called Shared Priorities, which is based on ranking of self-generated strategic items, is tested. Trained teams were compared to non-trained teams in a dynamic problem-solving task in terms of performance and shared awareness. The shared priorities measure was used alongside other, well-documented measures of team awareness based on self-rating. The results show that the Shared Priorities measure correlate with performance and could also distinguish between trained and non-trained teams. However, the Shared Priorities measure did not correlate with the other team measures, suggesting that it captures a different quality of team work than the self-rating measures. Further, the shared priorities measure was found to be easily administered and gained a high user acceptance.
- Artman, H. and Waern, Y. Creation and Loss of Cognitive Empathy at an Emergency Control Center. In (Ed.) Y. Waern. Cooperative Process Management -- Cognition and Information Technology. Francis & Taylor: London, 1998.Google Scholar
- Artman, H. Team situation assessment and information distribution. Ergonomics 43, 8, (2000), 1111-1128.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baroutsi, N., Berggren, P., Nählinder, S. and Johansson, B. Training teams to collaborative as cohesive units (Scientific report No. FOI-R--3830--SE), FOI, 2013.Google Scholar
- Berggren, P. and Johansson, B. Developing an instrument for measuring shared understanding. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management: Defining Crisis Management 3.0. Seattle, WA. May 2-5 (2010).Google Scholar
- Berggren, P., Svensson, J. and Hörberg, U. Mätning av gemensam lägesbild vid ledning på stridsteknisk och taktisk nivå - Studie genomförd på TCCS (Användarrapport No. FOI-R--2647--SE), FOI, 2008.Google Scholar
- Brannick, M.T., and Prince, C. An Overview of Team Performance Measurement. In (Eds.) M.T. Brannick, E. Salas, and C. Prince, Team performance Assessment and Measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, 1997.Google Scholar
- Brehmer, B. and Dörner, D. Experiments With Computer-Simulated Microworlds: Escaping Both the Narrow Straits of the Laboratory and the Deep Blue Sea of the Field Study. Computers in Human Behaviour, 9, (1993), 171--184.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brehmer, B. Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica. 81, (1992), 211--241.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. Quasi-experimentation: Design and anlysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1979.Google Scholar
- Cooke, N.J., Gorman, J.C., Myers, C.W. and Duran, J.L. Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science 37, 2, (2013), 255--85.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H.W., Reiter, F. and Stäudel, T. Lohausen. Von Umgang mit Unbestimmheit und Komplexität. Huber, Bern, 1983.Google Scholar
- Drury, C.G. Methods for direct observation of performance. In (Eds.) J.R. Wilson and E.N. Corlett. Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor and Francis, London, 1992.Google Scholar
- Endsley, M.R. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors 37, 1, (1995), 32--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fullagar, C.J., and Egleston, D.O. Norming and Performing: Using Microworlds to Understand the Relationship Between Team Cohesiveness and Performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 10, (2008), 2574--2593.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gonzalez C., Vanyukov, P. and Martin M.K. The use of microworlds to study dynamic decision making. Computers in Human Behavior 21, (2005), 273--286.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Granlund R, Johansson B, and Persson M. C3Fire a Micro-world for Collaboration Training in the ROLF environment. In proceedings to SIMS 2001 the 42nd Conference on Simulation and Modelling, Simulation in Theory and Practice, (2001).Google Scholar
- Granlund R. Monitoring Distributed Teamwork Training. Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Linköping University Press, Linköping, 2002.Google Scholar
- Heath, C.C. and Luff, P. Collaboration and control: Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, vol. 1, nos. 1--2, (1992), 69--94.Google Scholar
- Helton, W.S., Funke, G.J. and Knott, B.A. Measuring Workload in Collaborative Contexts: Trait Versus State Perspectives. Human Factors, online, (2013), 1--11.Google Scholar
- Hinsz, V.B. Metacognition and mental models in groups: An illustration with metamemory of group recognition memory. In (Eds.) E. Salas and S. M. Fiore, Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004, 33--58.Google Scholar
- Hollnagel, E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method --- CREAM. Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1998.Google Scholar
- Hollnagel, E., and Woods, D.D. Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Howie, D.E. and Vincente, K.J. Measures of operator performance in complex, dynamic microworlds: advancing the state of the art, Ergonomics 41, 4, (1998), 485--500.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hutchins, E. and Klausen, T. Distributed Cognition in an Airlane Cockpit. In (Eds.) Y. Engeström and D. Middelton. Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.Google Scholar
- Jersild, A.T. and Meigs, M.F. Direct Observation as a Research Method. Review of Educational Research. Methods of Research in Education 9, 5, (1939) 472--482.Google Scholar
- Jobidon, M.-E., Breton, R., Rousseau, R., and Tremblay, S. Team response to workload transition: The role of team structure. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, CA, (2006).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jones, D.G. and Kaber, D.B. Situation awareness measurement and the Situation awareness global assessment technique. In (Eds.) N.A. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas and H. Hendrick, Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics methods. CRC Press, London, 2005.Google Scholar
- Jones, P.E. and Roelofsma, P.H.M.P. The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: Biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics, 43, 8, (2000), 1129--1152.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kellermanns, F.W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., and Floyd, S.W. The Lack of Consensus About Strategic Consensus: Advancing Theory and Research. Journal of Management, 31, 5, (2005), 719--737.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kendall, M.G. Rank correlation methods (Forth ed.).: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd, London, 1975.Google Scholar
- Macmillan, J., Paley, M.J., Entin, E.B. and Entin, E.E. Questionnaires for Distributed Assessment of Team Mutual Awareness. In (Eds.) N.A. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas and H. Hendricks. Handbook of Human Factors Methods, Taylor and Francis, London, 2005.Google Scholar
- Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management 34, 3, (2008), 410--476.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McGuinnes, B. and Foy, L.A. Subjective measure of SA: the Crew Awareness Rating Scale (CARS). In The Human Performance, Situational Awareness an Automation Conference, (2000).Google Scholar
- Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publishing: London, 1994.Google Scholar
- Omodei, M.M., Wearing, A.J., McLennan, J., Elliot, G.C. and Clancy, J.M. "More is better?": Problems of Self-Regulation in Naturalistic Decision Making Settings. In (Eds.) B. Brehmer, H. Montgomery, and R. Lipshitz. How Professionals make decisions, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.: Mahaw, New Jersey, 2004.Google Scholar
- Orasanu, J. and Salas, E. Team Decision Making in Complex Environments. In (Eds.) Klein, G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R. and Zsambook, C.E. Decision Making in Action. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, 1993.Google Scholar
- Peirce, C. S. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1--6, 1931--1935, In (Eds.) C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1958.Google Scholar
- Prytz, E., Berggren, P. and Johansson, B.J.E. Performance and shared understanding in mixed C2-systems (Scientific report No. FOI-R--3155--SE), FOI, 2010.Google Scholar
- Saetrevik, B. and Eid, J. The "Similarity Index" as an Indicator of Shared Mental Models and Situation Awareness in Field Studies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, (2013), Online first: 1.18.Google Scholar
- Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. Special issue preface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, (2001), 87--88.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Saner, L.D., Bolstad, C.A., Gonzales, C. and Cuevas, H.M. Measuring and Predicting Shared Situation Awareness in Teams. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 3, 3, (2009), 280--308.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tuckman, B.W. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin 6, 36, (1965), 384--399.Google Scholar
- Wildman, J.L., Salas, E., and Scott, C.P.R. Measuring Cognition in Teams A Cross-Domain Review. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Online, (2013), 1--31.Google Scholar
Index Terms
The shared priorities measure as a way of assessing team strategic awareness: a bridge between self-assessment and the deep blue sea of field recordings
Recommendations
Mixed gated/exhaustive service in a polling model with priorities
In this paper we consider a single-server polling system with switch-over times. We introduce a new service discipline, mixed gated/exhaustive service, that can be used for queues with two types of customers: high and low priority customers. At the ...
Queuing with Alternating Priorities
For a service facility serving more than one class of customers a problem arises as to the order in which customers should be served i.e., the priority rule. A typical example is a manufacturing facility that produces two products to meet a random ...
Feedback queues with preemption-distance priorities
SIGMETRICS '89: Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systemsThe method of moments is used to derive exact analytical solutions for an open priority queueing system with preemption-distance priorities and feedback. Customers enter from outside in a Poisson stream. They can feed back for several times, changing ...
Comments