Evaluation of subjective mental workload:: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods
Evaluation of subjective mental workload:: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00161.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Puente, JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rubio, S;Díaz, E;Puente, JM
本研究对NASA任务负荷指数(TLX)、主观负荷评估技术(SWAT)和工作负荷概况(WP)三种多维主观负荷评估工具的心理测量学特性(侵入性、敏感性、诊断性和效度)进行了评估。受试者分别完成两项实验室任务(单项任务)和同时完成两项任务(双重任务)。方差分析的结果表明，三种工具的侵入性没有差异，三种主观工作负荷工具中，WP对不同的任务操作具有显著的敏感性。为了评估三种工具的诊断性，使用了典型判别分析，这表明三个多维评级提供了关于任务需求性质的诊断信息，这与先验的任务特征一致。然而，WP的诊断能力明显优于TLX或SWAT。计算各量表与各主观工作量量表之间的皮尔逊相关系数，评价各量表与任务绩效的同时效度，以及各量表的收敛效度。三个系数均为正且接近1，表明本研究所考虑的三个工具具有较高的收敛效度。还比较了实施要求和主体可接受性。最后，对这三种评估方法的实践意义进行了讨论。
The present research evaluates several psychometric properties (intrusiveness, sensitivity, diagnosticity, and validity) of three multidimensional subjective workload assessment instruments: the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT), and the Workload Profile (WP). Subjects performed two laboratory tasks separately (single task) and simultaneously (dual task). The results of the ANOVAs performed showed that there are no differences with regard to the three instruments' intrusiveness, and that among the three subjective workload instruments WP has an outstanding sensitivity to the different task manipulations. To evaluate the diagnosticity of each of the three instruments canonical discriminant analysis was used, and this demonstrated that the three multidimensional ratings provided diagnostic information on the nature of tasks demands that was consistent with the a priori task characterisation. However, the diagnostic power of WP was clearly superior to that obtained using TLX or SWAT. Pearson correlations between each performance and each subjective workload measure were calculated to evaluate the concurrent validity of each instrument with task performance, and to assess the convergent validity of the instruments. The three coefficients were positive and near to one, showing the high convergent validity of the three instruments considered in this research. Implementation requirements and subject acceptability were also compared. Finally, practical implications on the three assessment approaches are mentioned.