Evaluation of the Criterion Task Set. Part 1. CTS Performance and Swat Data - Baseline Conditions

1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Schlegel ◽  
Kirby Gilliland
Keyword(s):  
Task Set ◽  
Criterion Task ◽  
Baseline Conditions

scholarly journals Individual Differences in Criterion Task Set Performance

1986 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirby Gilliland ◽  
Robert Schlegel ◽  
Sharon Dannels
Keyword(s):  
Individual Difference ◽  
Air Force ◽  
Type A Behavior ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Performance Variables ◽  
Criterion Task ◽  
Individual Difference Variables ◽  
Force Criterion ◽  
Perceptual Abilities ◽  
Selection Of

As part of a larger standardization study of the U.S. Air Force Criterion Task Set (CTS), a number of individual difference variables were assessed to evaluate their relationship to CTS performance. The selection of these individual difference variables was based on their known or hypothesized relationship to performance or perceptual abilities. This paper reports some of the preliminary findings with regard to these individual difference variables. Of the variables measured, Stimulus Screening, Thrill and Adventure Seeking, Neuroticism, Type–A Behavior, and General Intelligence showed the most promising relationships to CTS performance variables.

The Criterion Task Set: An Updated Battery

1987 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Amell ◽  
F. Thomas Eggemeier ◽  
William H. Acton
Keyword(s):  
User Interface ◽  
Data Reduction ◽  
Validation Studies ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Trial Number ◽  
Criterion Task ◽  
Naming Convention ◽  
Reduction Program ◽  
Made In

Several tasks in the Criterion Task Set have been modified as a result of validation studies conducted on the original battery. Recent research has established new loading levels for those tasks. In addition to task changes, several modifications have been made in the user interface. Added features include: a 30 second trial option, automatic trial number incrementing, a file naming convention, and a data reduction program.

User's Guide for the Criterion Task Set

1985 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Acton ◽  
Mark S. Crabtree
Keyword(s):  
Task Set ◽  
Criterion Task

scholarly journals Relationship between Criterion Task Set Performance and the Personality Variables of Sensation Seeking and Stimulus Screening

1987 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirby Gilliland ◽  
Robert Schlegel ◽  
Sharon Dannels
Keyword(s):  
Sensation Seeking ◽  
Biological Processes ◽  
Personality Dimensions ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Personality Variables ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Criterion Task ◽  
Sensation Seeking Scale ◽  
Performance Results ◽  
Screening Scale

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the utility of the Criterion Task Set (CTS) as a method for personality theory testing. Subjects in a large CTS standardization study were administered the Sensation Seeking scale and the Stimulus Screening scale, two personality dimensions based theoretically on perceptual or biological processes that are believed to mediate task performance. Results indicated that high sensation seekers respond faster, but not necessarily more accurately, than low sensation seekers to central processing tasks. No differences were found for input/perceptual or motor/output tasks. Also, no differences were found between screeners and nonscreeners for any CTS tasks. The results of this study suggest that the CTS can be used profitably by personality researchers to test the basic assumptions of the theories of some personality dimensions.

scholarly journals Training Characteristics of the Criterion Task Set Workload Assessment Battery

1985 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 770-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Schlegel ◽  
Clark A. Shingledecker
Keyword(s):  
Response Time ◽  
The Other ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Criterion Task ◽  
Subjective Workload ◽  
Stable Performance ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Time Accuracy

An evaluation of the Criterion Task Set was performed to determine the training requirements for the various tasks. Twenty subjects were divided into four groups. One group trained on all nine tasks in the battery. The other three groups trained on different three-task subsets. All subjects trained for two hours per day on five consecutive days. Response time, accuracy and subjective workload measures were obtained for each trial. The required number of trials for stable performance ranged from two to six with a mode of five. Slight improvements were observed on some tasks after eight to ten trials. Performance by the group trained on all nine tasks was equivalent on half of the tasks and worse on the other half. Subjective workload ratings were highly correlated with the actual performance scores.

The Criterion Task Set: Validation and Application

1986 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Clark A Shingledecker
Keyword(s):  
Performance Assessment ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Human Performance ◽  
Scale Validation ◽  
Relative Sensitivity ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Performance Tasks ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Criterion Task

The Criterion Task Set (CTS) is a battery of performance tasks which was developed at the Air Force Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. Based on an information processing stage/resource model of human performance, the CTS was designed to evaluate the relative sensitivity, diagnosticity and intrusiveness of available measures of operator workload. It has also been employed as a performance assessment instrument to evaluate the effects of stressors on hypothesized independent sources of performance capability. Since the completion of original developmental research and the implementation of the CTS in a standard hardware/software system, a number of researchers have employed the battery in applied human performance studies and in efforts which have contributed to its further refinement. The objectives of this symposium are to present accounts of six of these research projects and to provide a forum for individuals who are currently using the CTS or who are interested in potential applications of this performance assessment system. The papers presented in the symposium include a report of a large-scale validation project which has formed the basis for a CTS data base (Schlegel, Gilliland and Schlegel), as well as a study aimed at improvement of one of the tasks comprising the battery (Eggemeier and Amell). The remaining four papers describe applications of the CTS to the investigation of physiological (Wilson and McCloskey) and subjective (Acton, Reid and Perez) workload metrics, and to the study of individual differences (Gilliland, Schlegel and Dannels) and subjective arousal states (Kimball and Pond).

Development and Application of a Criterion Task Set for Workload Metric Evaluation

1983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shingledecker Clark A. ◽  
William H. Acton ◽  
Mark S. Crabtree
Keyword(s):  
Task Set ◽  
Criterion Task

scholarly journals Factor Structure of the Criterion Task Set

1987 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Schlegel ◽  
Kirby Gilliland ◽  
Betina Schlegel
Keyword(s):  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Memory Search ◽  
Linguistic Processing ◽  
Baseline Trial ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Criterion Task ◽  
Mathematical Processing ◽  
Time Variables

A large-scale experimental study was conducted involving the training and testing of 123 human subjects on the Criterion Task Set (Version 1.0). Testing was performed under baseline and stressor conditions. The performance data and Subjective Workload Assessment Technique ratings for the first baseline trial (Trial 6) were analyzed using the SAS VARCLUS procedure to evaluate the structure of the CTS. Seven clusters of response time variables were identified for the nine tasks. In general, the Memory Search, Linguistic Processing and Mathematical Processing tasks were grouped in one cluster with each of the other clusters representing a single task. Five clusters were identified for the SWAT ratings with clusters differentiated along the dimensions of task difficulty and processing stage.

Standardized Tests for the Evaluation and Classification of Workload Metrics

1982 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 648-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clark A. Shingledecker ◽  
Mark S. Crabtree ◽  
William H. Acton
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Criterion Task

Although a variety of metrics are available for workload assessment, little research has been conducted to construct guidelines for optimally matching them to individual workload questions or test environments. In an effort to remedy this problem, AFAMRL is currently developing a standardized methodology which will be used to evaluate candidate workload measures on several theoretical and pragmatic criteria. The central feature of this methodology is a set of representative loading tasks. This paper outlines the analyses that were conducted to screen potential components of the Criterion Task Set (CTS) and describes the tasks which were selected to produce demands on a number of functional dimensions of information processing.

scholarly journals Development of the Criterion Task Set Performance Data Base

1986 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Schlegel ◽  
Kirby Gilliland ◽  
Betina Schlegel
Keyword(s):  
Data Base ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Subjective Assessment ◽  
Sleep Loss ◽  
Performance Data ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Criterion Task

The initial phase of a large-scale experimental study was conducted involving the training and testing of fifty human subjects on the Criterion Task Set (Version 1.0). Testing was performed under baseline conditions and the stressors of noise and sleep loss. The resulting data base includes CTS performance data and subjective ratings obtained using the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT) for each task, along with information on subject individual differences. This paper presents the methodology used for the data collection and analysis efforts and provides a summary of the performance and subjective assessment information. In general, no performance differences were found under the noise stress condition. Following sleep loss, response times for the central processing tasks deteriorated as did performance on the Unstable Tracking and Interval Production tasks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document