Assessing individual contributions to Collaborative Problem Solving: A network analysis approach
Assessing individual contributions to Collaborative Problem Solving: A network analysis approach
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.009
复制
发表时间：
2020-03
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Z. Swiecki;A. Ruis;Cayley Farrell;D. Shaffer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Z. Swiecki;A. Ruis;Cayley Farrell;D. Shaffer
协作性问题解决(CPS)是一个交互的、相互依赖的、时间的过程。然而，目前测量个体CPS过程的方法，如编码和计数，将这些过程视为一组孤立和独立的事件。相比之下，认知网络分析(ENA)模拟了特定个人的贡献与其他人的贡献之间的关系。本文通过对两种不同的基于计算机的决策支持系统的对比实验，考察了防空作战分队的通信情况，并利用这些数据来询问ENA是否提供了一个比编码和计数更生态有效的CPS量化模型。定性分析表明，使用单一系统的指挥官提出问题是为了了解战术状况，而使用实验系统的指挥官则更注重行动以应对战术状况。我们测试的两种编码和计数方法都没有用具有统计学意义的结果来证实这些发现。相比之下，ENA创建了指挥官个人贡献的模型，这些模型(A)显示使用这两个系统的指挥官之间的统计差异，以证实定性分析，(B)显示个人业绩的差异。这表明ENA是一种比编码和计数方法更强大的CPS评估工具。
Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is an interactive, interdependent, and temporal process. However, current methods for measuring the CPS processes of individuals, such as coding and counting, treat these processes as sets of isolated and independent events. In contrast, Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) models how the contributions of a given individual relate to the contributions of others. This article examines the communications of air defense warfare teams from an experiment comparing two different computer-based decision support systems, using this data to ask whether ENA provides a more ecologically valid quantitative model of CPS than coding and counting. Qualitative analysis showed that commanders using one system asked questions tounderstandthe tactical situation, while commanders using an experimental system focused more onactionsin response to the tactical situation. Neither of the coding and counting approaches we tested corroborated these findings with statistically significant results. In contrast, ENA created models of the individual contributions of commanders that (a) showed statistical differences between commanders using the two systems to corroborate the qualitative analysis, and (b) revealed differences in individual performance. This suggests that ENA is a more powerful tool for CPS assessment than coding and counting approaches.