Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods

(1)

and Ergonomics Methods

(2)

C RC PR E S S

Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.

Neville Stanton Alan Hedge Karel Brookhuis

Eduardo Salas

Hal Hendrick

(3)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microﬁlming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or internal use of speciﬁc clients, may be granted by CRC Press LLC, provided that $1.50 per page photocopied is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is ISBN 0-415-28700-6/05/$0.00+$1.50. The fee is subject to change without notice. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Speciﬁc permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC for such copying.

Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation, without intent to infringe.

Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com

Library of Congress Card Number 2003012359 Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Printed on acid-free paper

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods / edited by Neville Stanton … [et al.].

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-415-28700-6 (alk. paper)

1. Human engineering—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Stanton, Neville, 1960– . TA166.H275 2004

620.8′2—dc21 2003012359

CIP

(4)

Preface

I must confess to a love of human factors and ergonomics methods. This is a love bordering on obsession.

Ever since I was taught how to use hierarchical task analysis (HTA) almost 20 years ago, I have been hooked. Since that time, I have learned how to use dozens of methods. Each time, it is a mini-adventure.

I sometimes wonder if I will understand a new method properly, but when it clicks, I feel euphoric. I have also spent a good deal of time training others in the use of methods. This is an extremely rewarding experience, particularly when a trainee presents an analysis of his/her own that shows a clear grasp of how the method works. I have also enjoyed developing some new methods. For example, in collaboration with Chris Baber at the University of Birmingham, I have developed an error-prediction methodology called “task analysis for error identiﬁcation” (TAFEI). As with HTA, we have sought to underpin TAFEI with a theory of human performance. We are still discovering new aspects of the TAFEI analysis, and it gives us both a thrill to see other people reporting their studies using TAFEI.

The inspiration for this handbook came after I wrote A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics with Mark Young, which was also published by Taylor & Francis. It was clear to me that, although the human factors and ergonomics literature is full of references to methods, there are few consistent standards for how these methods are described and reported. This handbook began in 2000 with a proposal to Taylor &

Francis. Fortunately, Tony Moore smiled on this book. With his go-ahead, I contacted experts in each of the various domains of ergonomics methods and asked them to edit different sections of the book. I feel very fortunate that I managed to recruit such an eminent team. To be fair, they did not take much persuasion, as they also agreed that this project was a worthwhile undertaking. The next step was to ask experts in the various ergonomics methodologies to summarize their methods in a standardized format.

It was a pleasant surprise to see how willingly the contributors responded.

Now, some 4 years after the initial conception, all of the contributions have been gathered and edited.

On behalf of the editorial team, I hope that you, the reader, will ﬁnd this to be a useful handbook. We hope that this book will encourage developers of methods to structure the reporting of their methods in a consistent manner. Equally important, we hope that this handbook will encourage users of the methods to be more adventurous.

Neville A. Stanton August 2004

(5)

Acknowledgments

On behalf of the editorial team, I would like to thank all of the contributors to this handbook for their professionalism and diligence. I would also like to thank the book commissioning and production team at Taylor & Francis and CRC Press, especially Tony Moore, Sarah Kramer, Matt Gibbons, Jessica Vakili, Cindy Carelli, and Naomi Lynch.

(6)

Editors

Neville A. Stanton is a professor of human-centered design at Brunel University in the U.K. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Hull as well as master and doctoral degrees in human factors from Aston University. Professor Stanton has published over 70 peer-reviewed journal papers and 7 books on human-centered design. He was a visiting fellow of the Department of Design at Cornell University in 1998. He was awarded the Institution of Electrical Engineers Divisional Premium Award for a paper on engineering psychology and system safety in 1998. The Ergonomics Society awarded him the Otto Edholm Medal in 2001 for his contribution to basic and applied ergonomics research.

Professor Stanton is on the editorial boards of Ergonomics, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, and the International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. Professor Stanton is a chartered psychologist and a fellow of the British Psychological Society, a fellow of the Ergonomics Society, and a fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts.

Eduardo Salas is a professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida, where he also holds an appointment as program director for the Human Systems Integration Research Department at the Institute for Simulation and Training. He is also the director of UCF’s Ph.D. Applied Experimental &

Human Factors Program. Previously, he served as a senior research psychologist and head of the Training Technology Development Branch of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division for 15 years.

During this period, Dr. Salas served as a principal investigator for numerous R&D programs focusing on teamwork, team training, decision making under stress, and performance assessment.

Dr. Salas has coauthored over 200 journal articles and book chapters and has coedited 11 books. He has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Military Psychology, Interamerican Journal of Psychology, Applied Psychology: an International Journal, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Group Dynamics, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior.

His expertise includes helping organizations to foster teamwork, to design and implement team training strategies, to facilitate training effectiveness, to manage decision making under stress, to develop performance measurement tools, and to design learning environments. He is currently working on designing tools and techniques to minimize human errors in aviation, law enforcement, and medical environments. He has served as a consultant in a variety of manufacturing settings, pharmaceutical laboratories, and industrial and governmental organizations. Dr. Salas is a fellow of the American Psychological Association (SIOP and Division 21) and the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, and he is a recipient of the Meritorious Civil Service Award from the Department of the Navy. He received his Ph.D. degree (1984) in industrial and organizational psychology from Old Dominion University.

Hal W. Hendrick, Ph.D., CPE, DABFE, is emeritus professor of human factors and ergonomics at the University of Southern California and principal of Hendrick and Associates, an ergonomics and industrial and organizational psychology consulting firm. He is a certified professional ergonomist, diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Examiners, and holds a Ph.D. in industrial psychology and an M.S. in human factors from Purdue University, with a minor in industrial engineering. He is a past chair of USC’s Human Factors Department, former executive director of the university’s Institute of Safety and Systems Management, and a former dean at the University of Denver. He earlier was an associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he helped develop the psychology major and developed the Cooperative MS Program in Human Factors with Purdue University. Hal is a past president of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), the International Ergonomics Association, and the Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics. He is a fellow of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), HFES,

(7)

American Psychological Association, and American Psychological Society. He is a recipient of the USC outstanding teaching award and both the HFES Jack A. Kraft Innovator Award and Alexander C. Williams, Jr., Design Award. He is the author or coauthor of over 180 professional publications, including 3 books, and editor or coeditor of 11 books. Hal conceptualized and initiated the subdiscipline of macroergonomics.

Alan Hedge is a professor in the Department of Design and Environmental Analysis at Cornell University.

His work focuses on the effects of workplace design on the health, comfort, and performance of people.

Recent projects have investigated alternative input device design, ergonomic chairs, and other furniture workstation elements that can reduce musculoskeletal disorder risk factors. He also researches indoor environmental design issues, especially air quality, ventilation, and the sick-building syndrome as well as ofﬁce lighting and computer-vision syndrome. He has coauthored a book, Keeping Buildings Healthy, 25 chapters, and over 150 professional publications. He is active in several professional societies.

Karel Brookhuis studied psychology at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, specializing in experimental psy- chology, in 1980. He then became a research fellow (Ph.D. student) at the Institute for Experimental Psychology, with a specialization in psychophysiology. In 1983 he became a senior researcher at the Trafﬁc Research Centre, which later merged into the Centre for Environmental and Trafﬁc Psychology, at the University of Groningen. In 1986 he became head of the Department of Biopsychological Aspects of Driving Behaviour, later renamed the Department of Task Performance and Cognition. In 1994 he was appointed as a research manager, responsible for the centre’s research planning and quality control. After the centre was closed on January 1, 2000, he became associate professor (UHD) in the Department of Experimental and Work Psychology. Since 2001, Brookhuis has served as a part-time full professor at the Section of Transport Policy and Logistics of the Technical University of Delft.

(8)

Contributors

Torbjörn Åkerstedt

National Institute for Psychosocial Factors and Health

Stockholm, Sweden

W.G. Allread

Ohio State University Institute for Ergonomics Columbus, OH

Dee H. Andrews

U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Warﬁghter Training Research

Division Mesa, AZ

John Annett

University of Warwick Department of Psychology Coventry, U.K.

Amelia A. Armstrong

Klein Associates Inc.

Fairborn, OH

Christopher Baber

University of Birmingham Computing Engineering Birmingham, U.K.

David P. Baker

American Institutes for Research Washington, D.C.

Natale Battevi

EPM-CEMOC Milan, Italy

J. Matthew Beaubien

Artem Belopolsky

University of Illinois Department of Psychology Champaign, IL

Jennifer Blume

National Space Biomedical Research Institute Houston, TX

Gunnar Borg

Stockholm University Department of Psychology Stockholm, Sweden

Wolfram Boucsein

University of Wuppertal Physiological Psychology Wuppertal, Germany

Clint A. Bowers

University of Central Florida Department of Psychology Orlando, FL

Peter R. Boyce

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Lighting Research Center Troy, NY

Karel A. Brookhuis

University of Groningen Experimental & Work Psychology Groningen, the Netherlands

Ogden Brown, Jr.

University of Denver Denver, CO

Peter Buckle

University of Surrey Robens Center for Health

Ergonomics Guildford, U.K.

C. Shawn Burke

University of Central Florida Institute for Simulation & Training Orlando, FL

Pascale Carayon

University of Wisconsin

Center for Quality & Productivity Improvement

Madison, WI

Daniela Colombini

Nancy J. Cooke

Arizona State University East Applied Psychology Program Mesa, AZ

Lee Cooper

University of Birmingham Computing Engineering Birmingham, U.K.

Nigel Corlett

University of Nottingham Institute for Occupational

Ergonomics Nottingham, U.K.

Dana M. Costar

Pamela Dalton

Monell Chemical Senses Center Philadelphia, PA

Renée E. DeRouin

Dick de Waard

David F. Dinges

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia, PA

James E. Driskell

Florida Maxima Corporation Winter Park, FL

Robin Dunkin-Chadwick

NIOSH

Division of Applied Research

& Technology Cincinnati, OH

J.R. Easter

Aegis Research Corporation Pittsburgh, PA

W.C. Elm

(9)

Eileen B. Entin

Aptima, Inc.

Wodburn, MA

Elliot E. Entin

Aptima, Inc.

Wodburn, MA

Gary W. Evans

Cornell University Department of Design &

Environmental Analysis Ithaca, NY

Stephen M. Fiore

M.M. Fleischer

University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA

Jennifer E. Fowlkes

Chi Systems, Inc.

Orlando, FL

Philippe Geslin

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Toulouse, France and

Université de Neuchâtel Institut d’ethnologie

Neuchâtel, Switzerland

Matthias Göbel

Berlin University of Technology Department of Human Factors

Engineering and Product Ergonomics

Berlin, Germany

Thad Godish

Ball State University

Department of Natural Resources Muncie, IN

Gerald F. Goodwin

U.S. Army Research Institute Alexandria, VA

Paul Grossman

Freiburg Institute for Mindfulness Research

Freiburg, Germany

J.W. Gualtieri

Bianka B. Hahn

Fairborn, OH

Thomas R. Hales

NIOSH

George Havenith

Loughborough University Department of Human Sciences Loughborough, U.K.

Alan Hedge

Cornell University Department of Design &

Environmental Analysis Ithaca, NY

Hal W. Hendrick

Hendrick and Associates Greenwood Village, CO

Sue Hignett

Loughborough University Department of Human Sciences Loughborough, U.K.

Vincent H. Hildebrandt

TNO Work & Employment Hoofddorp, the Netherlands and

Body@Work Research Center on Physical Activity, Work and Health TNO Vumc Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Hermann Hinrichs

University of Magdeburg Clinic for Neurology Magdeburg, Germany

Peter Hoonakker

University of Wisconsin

Center for Quality & Productivity Improvement

Madison, WI

Karen Jacobs

Boston University Programs in Occupational Therapy Boston, MA

Florian Jentsch

R.F. Soames Job

University of Sydney School of Psychology Sydney, Australia

Debra G. Jones

SA Technologies, Inc.

Marietta, GA

David B. Kaber

North Carolina State University Department of Industrial

Engineering Raleigh, NC

Jussi Kantola

University of Louisville

Center for Industrial Ergonomics Louisville, KY

Waldemar Karwowski

University of Louisville

Center for Industrial Ergonomics Louisville, KY

Kristina Kemmlert

National Institute for Working Life Solna, Sweden

Mark Kirby

University of Huddersﬁeld School of Computing and

Engineering Huddersﬁeld, U.K.

Gary Klein

Fairborn, OH

Brian M. Kleiner

Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University

Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering Blacksburg, VA

David W. Klinger

Fairborn, OH

Arthur F. Kramer

University of Illinois Department of Psychology Champaign, IL

Guangyan Li

Human Engineering Limited Bristol, U.K.

(10)

Jean MacMillan

Aptima, Inc.

Wodburn, MA

Ann Majchrzak

University of Southern California Marshall School of Business Los Angeles, CA

Melissa M. Mallis

NASA Ames Research Center Fatigue Countermeasures Group Moffett Field, CA

W.S. Marras

Ohio State University Institute for Ergonomics Columbus, OH

Philip Marsden

University of Huddersﬁeld School of Computing and

Engineering Huddersﬁeld, U.K.

Laura Martin-Milham

Lorraine E. Maxwell

Cornell University

Design & Environmental Analysis Ithaca, NY

Lynn McAtamney

COPE Occupational Health and Ergonomics Services Ltd.

Nottingham, U.K.

Olga Menoni

J. Mokray

J. Steven Moore

Texas A&M University School of Rural Public Health Bryan, TX

Lambertus (Ben) J.M.

Mulder

Brian Mullen

Syracuse University Syracuse, NY

Mitsuo Nagamachi

Hiroshima International University Hiroshima, Japan

Leah Newman

Pennsylvania State University The Harold & Inge Marcus

Department of Industrial &

Manufacturing Engineering University Park, PA

Enrico Occhipinti

Michael J. Paley

Aptima, Inc.

Wodburn, MA

Daniela Panciera

Brian Peacock

National Space Biomedical Research Institute Houston, TX

S.S. Potter

Heather A. Priest

Renate Rau

University of Technology Occupational Health Psychology Dresden, Germany

Mark S. Rea

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Lighting Research Center Troy, NY

Maria Grazia Ricci

Hannu Rintamäki

Oulu Regional Institute of Occupational Health Oulu, Finland

Michelle M. Robertson

Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety

Hopkinton, MA

Suzanne H. Rodgers

Consultant in Ergonomics Rochester, NY

D. Roitman

E.M. Roth

Roth Cognitive Engineering Brookline, MA

Eduardo Salas

Steven L. Sauter

NIOSH

Steven M. Shope

US Positioning Group, LLC Mesa, AZ

Monique Smeets

Utrecht University

Department of Social Sciences Utrecht, the Netherlands

Tonya L. Smith-Jackson

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering Blacksburg, VA

Kimberly A. Smith-Jentsch

Stover H. Snook

Harvard School of Public Health Boston, MA

Neville A. Stanton

Brunel University School of Engineering London, U.K.

(11)

Naomi G. Swanson

NIOSH

Jørn Toftum

Technical University of Denmark International Centre for Indoor

Environment & Energy Lyngby, Denmark

Rendell R. Torres

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute School of Architecture Troy, NY

Susan Vallance

Johnson Engineering Houston, TX

Gordon A. Vos

Texas A&M University School of Rural Public Health Bryan, TX

Guy Walker

Brunel University School of Engineering London, U.K.

Donald E. Wasserman

University of Tennessee

Institute for the Study of Human Vibration

Knoxville, TN

Jack F. Wasserman

Knoxville, TN

Thomas R. Waters

NIOSH

Christopher D. Wickens

University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign

Institute of Aviation

Aviation Human Factors Division Savoy, IL

Cornelis J.E. Wientjes

NATO Research & Technology Agency

Brussels, Belgium

David Wilder

Knoxville, TN

Mark S. Young

University of New South Wales Department of Aviation Sydney, Australia

(12)

1

Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods Neville A. Stanton . . . 1-1

Physical Methods

2

Physical Methods Alan Hedge . . . 2-1

3

PLIBEL — The Method Assigned for Identiﬁcation of

Ergonomic Hazards Kristina Kemmlert . . . 3-1

4

Musculoskeletal Discomfort Surveys Used at NIOSH Steven L. Sauter, Naomi G. Swanson, Thomas R. Waters,

Thomas R. Hales, and Robin Dunkin-Chadwick . . . 4-1

5

The Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (DMQ)

Vincent H. Hildebrandt . . . 5-1

6

Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) for the Assessment of Workplace Risks for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs)

Guangyan Li and Peter Buckle . . . 6-1

7

Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) Lynn McAtamney and Nigel Corlett. . . 7-1

8

Rapid Entire Body Assessment Lynn McAtamney and Sue Hignett . . . 8-1

9

The Strain Index J. Steven Moore and Gordon A. Vos. . . 9-1

10

Posture Checklist Using Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) Technology Karen Jacobs . . . 10-1

11

Scaling Experiences during Work: Perceived Exertion and Difﬁculty

Gunnar Borg . . . 11-1

12

Muscle Fatigue Assessment: Functional Job Analysis Technique

Suzanne H. Rodgers . . . 12-1

13

Psychophysical Tables: Lifting, Lowering, Pushing, Pulling, and Carrying Stover H. Snook . . . 13-1

14

Lumbar Motion Monitor W.S. Marras and W.G. Allread . . . 14-1

15

The Occupational Repetitive Action (OCRA) Methods: OCRA Index and OCRA Checklist Enrico Occhipinti and Daniela Colombini . . . 15-1

(13)

16

Assessment of Exposure to Manual Patient Handling in Hospital Wards:

MAPO Index (Movement and Assistance of Hospital Patients)

Olga Menoni, Maria Grazia Ricci, Daniela Panciera, and Natale Battevi 16-1

Psychophysiological Methods

17

Psychophysiological Methods Karel A. Brookhuis . . . 17-1

18

Electrodermal Measurement Wolfram Boucsein . . . 18-1

19

Electromyography (EMG) Matthias Göbel . . . 19-1

20

Estimating Mental Effort Using Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability

Lambertus (Ben) J.M. Mulder, Dick de Waard, and Karel A. Brookhuis . . . 20-1

21

Ambulatory EEG Methods and Sleepiness Torbjörn Åkerstedt . . . 21-1

22

Assessing Brain Function and Mental Chronometry with Event-Related Potentials (ERP) Arthur F. Kramer and Artem Belopolsky. . . 22-1

23

MEG and fMRI Hermann Hinrichs . . . 23-1

24

Ambulatory Assessment of Blood Pressure to Evaluate Workload

Renate Rau . . . 24-1

25

Monitoring Alertness by Eyelid Closure

Melissa M. Mallis and David F. Dinges . . . 25-1

26

Measurement of Respiration in Applied Human Factors and

Ergonomics Research Cornelis J.E. Wientjes and Paul Grossman . . . 26-1

Behavioral and Cognitive Methods

27

Behavioral and Cognitive Methods Neville A. Stanton . . . 27-1

28

Observation Neville A. Stanton, Christopher Baber, and Mark S. Young . . . 28-1

29

Applying Interviews to Usability Assessment

Mark S. Young and Neville A. Stanton . . . 29-1

30

Verbal Protocol Analysis Guy Walker . . . 30-1

31

Repertory Grid for Product Evaluation Christopher Baber . . . 31-1

32

Focus Groups Lee Cooper and Christopher Baber . . . 32-1

33

Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) John Annett. . . 33-1

34

Allocation of Functions Philip Marsden and Mark Kirby . . . 34-1

(14)

35

Critical Decision Method Gary Klein and Amelia A. Armstrong . . . 35-1

36

Applied Cognitive Work Analysis (ACWA) W.C. Elm, E.M. Roth,

S.S. Potter, J.W. Gualtieri, and J.R. Easter . . . 36-1

37

Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach (SHERPA) Neville A. Stanton . . . 37-1

38

Task Analysis for Error Identiﬁcation Neville A. Stanton and

Christopher Baber. . . 38-1

39

Mental Workload Mark S. Young and Neville A. Stanton . . . 39-1

40

Multiple Resource Time Sharing Models Christopher D. Wickens . . . 40-1

41

Critical Path Analysis for Multimodal Activity Christopher Baber . . . 41-1

42

Situation Awareness Measurement and the Situation Awareness

Global Assessment Technique Debra G. Jones and David B. Kaber . . . 42-1

Team Methods

43

Team Methods Eduardo Salas . . . 43-1

44

Team Training Eduardo Salas and Heather A. Priest . . . 44-1

45

Distributed Simulation Training for Teams Dee H. Andrews . . . 45-1

46

Synthetic Task Environments for Teams: CERTT’s UAV-STE

Nancy J. Cooke and Steven M. Shope . . . 46-1

47

Event-Based Approach to Training (EBAT) Jennifer E. Fowlkes

and C. Shawn Burke . . . 47-1

48

Team Building Eduardo Salas, Heather A. Priest, and

Renée E. DeRouin . . . 48-1

49

Measuring Team Knowledge Nancy J. Cooke . . . 49-1

50

Team Communications Analysis Florian Jentsch and Clint A. Bowers . . . 50-1

51

Questionnaires for Distributed Assessment of Team Mutual Awareness Jean MacMillan, Michael J. Paley, Eileen B. Entin, and Elliot E. Entin. . . 51-1

52

Team Decision Requirement Exercise: Making Team Decision

Requirements Explicit David W. Klinger and Bianka B. Hahn. . . 52-1

53

Targeted Acceptable Responses to Generated Events or Tasks (TARGETs) Jennifer E. Fowlkes and C. Shawn Burke . . . 53-1

(15)

54

Behavioral Observation Scales (BOS) J. Matthew Beaubien, Gerald F. Goodwin, Dana M. Costar, David P. Baker, and Kimberly A. Smith-Jentsch. . . 54-1

55

Team Situation Assessment Training for Adaptive Coordination

Laura Martin-Milham and Stephen M. Fiore. . . 55-1

56

Team Task Analysis C. Shawn Burke . . . 56-1

57

Team Workload Clint A. Bowers and Florian Jentsch . . . 57-1

58

Social Network Analysis James E. Driskell and Brian Mullen. . . 58-1

Environmental Methods

59

Environmental Methods Alan Hedge. . . 59-1

60

Thermal Conditions Measurement George Havenith . . . 60-1

61

Cold Stress Indices Hannu Rintamäki. . . 61-1

62

Heat Stress Indices Alan Hedge. . . 62-1

63

Thermal Comfort Indices Jørn Toftum . . . 63-1

64

Indoor Air Quality: Chemical Exposures Alan Hedge . . . 64-1

65

Indoor Air Quality: Biological/Particulate-Phase Contaminant

Exposure Assessment Methods Thad Godish. . . 65-1

66

Olfactometry: The Human Nose as Detection Instrument

Pamela Dalton and Monique Smeets. . . 66-1

67

The Context and Foundation of Lighting Practice

Mark S. Rea and Peter R. Boyce . . . 67-1

68

Photometric Characterization of the Luminous Environment

Mark S. Rea. . . 68-1

69

Evaluating Ofﬁce Lighting Peter R. Boyce. . . 69-1

70

Rapid Sound-Quality Assessment of Background Noise

Rendell R. Torres . . . 70-1

71

Noise Reaction Indices and Assessment R.F. Soames Job . . . 71-1

72

Noise and Human Behavior Gary W. Evans and Lorraine E. Maxwell . . 72-1

73

Occupational Vibration: A Concise Perspective Jack F. Wasserman,

Donald E. Wasserman, and David Wilder. . . 73-1

(16)

74

Habitability Measurement in Space Vehicles and Earth Analogs

Brian Peacock, Jennifer Blume, and Susan Vallance . . . 74-1

Macroergonomic Methods

75

Macroergonomic Methods Hal W. Hendrick . . . 75-1

76

Macroergonomic Organizational Questionnaire Survey (MOQS)

Pascale Carayon and Peter Hoonakker . . . 76-1

77

Interview Method Leah Newman . . . 77-1

78

Focus Groups Leah Newman. . . 78-1

79

Laboratory Experiment Brian M. Kleiner. . . 79-1

80

Field Study and Field Experiment Hal W. Hendrick. . . 80-1

81

Participatory Ergonomics (PE) Ogden Brown, Jr. . . 81-1

82

Cognitive Walk-Through Method (CWM) Tonya L. Smith-Jackson. . . 82-1

83

Kansei Engineering Mitsuo Nagamachi. . . 83-1

84

HITOP Analysis™ Ann Majchrzak, M.M. Fleischer, D. Roitman,

and J. Mokray . . . 84-1

85

TOP-Modeler© Ann Majchrzak . . . 85-1

86

The CIMOP System© Waldemar Karwowski and Jussi Kantola . . . 86-1

87

Anthropotechnology Philippe Geslin. . . 87-1

88

Systems Analysis Tool (SAT) Michelle M. Robertson. . . 88-1

89

Macroergonomic Analysis of Structure (MAS) Hal W. Hendrick. . . 89-1

90

Macroergonomic Analysis and Design (MEAD) Brian M. Kleiner. . . 90-1

(17)

1

Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods

1.1 Aims of the Handbook ... 1-1 1.2 Layout of the Handbook ... 1-3 1.3 Layout of Each Entry ... 1-5 1.4 Other Methods Books... 1-5 1.5 Challenges for Human Factors and Ergonomics

Methods ... 1-6 References ... 1-8

1.1 Aims of the Handbook

The main aim of this handbook is to provide a comprehensive, authoritative, and practical account of human factors and ergonomics methods. It is intended to encourage people to make full use of human factors and ergonomics methods in system design. Research has suggested that even professional ergonomists tend to restrict themselves to two or three of their favorite methods, despite variations in the problems that they address (Baber and Mirza, 1988; Stanton and Young, 1998). If this book leads people to explore human factors and ergonomics methods that are new to them, then it will have achieved its goal.

The page constraints of this handbook meant that coverage of the main areas of ergonomics had to be limited to some 83 methods. The scope of coverage, outlined in Table 1.1, was determined by what ergonomists do.

From these deﬁnitions, it can be gleaned that the domain of human factors and ergonomics includes:

• Human capabilities and limitations

• Human–machine interaction

• Teamwork

• Tools, machines, and material design

• Environmental factors

• Work and organizational design

These deﬁnitions also put an emphasis (sometimes implicit) on analysis of human performance, safety, and satisfaction. It is no wonder, then, that human factors and ergonomics is a discipline with a strong tradition in the development and application of methods.

Hancock and Diaz (2002) argue that, as a scientific discipline, ergonomics holds the moral high ground, with the aim of bettering the human condition. They suggest that this may be at conflict with other aims of improving system effectiveness and efficiency. No one would argue with the aims of improved comfort, satisfaction, and well-being, but the drawing of boundaries between the improvements for individuals and improvements for the whole system might cause some heated debate. Wilson (1995) suggests that the twin interdependent aims of ergonomics might not be easy to resolve, but ergonomists have a duty to both individual jobholders and the employing organization. Ethical concerns about the issue of divided Neville A. Stanton

Brunel University

(18)

responsibilities might only be dealt with satisfactorily by making it clear to all concerned where one’s loyalties lie.

The International Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics (Karwowski, 2001) has an entire section devoted to methods and techniques. Many of the other sections of the encyclopedia also provide references to, if not actual examples of, ergonomics methods. In short, the importance of human factors and ergonomics methods cannot be overstated. These methods offer the ergonomist a structured approach to the analysis and evaluation of design problems. The ergonomist's approach can be described using the scientist-practitioner model. As a scientist, the ergonomist is:

• Extending the work of others

• Testing theories of human–machine performance

• Developing hypotheses

• Questioning everything

• Using rigorous data-collection and data-analysis techniques

• Ensuring repeatability of results

• Disseminating the ﬁnding of studies As a practitioner, the ergonomist is:

• Addressing real-world problems

• Seeking the best compromise under difﬁcult circumstances

• Looking to offer the most cost-effective solution

• Developing demonstrators and prototype solutions

• Analyzing and evaluating the effects of change

• Developing benchmarks for best practice

• Communicating ﬁndings to interested parties

Most ergonomists will work somewhere between the poles of scientist and practitioner, varying the emphasis of their approach depending upon the problems that they face. Human factors and ergonomist methods are useful in the scientist-practitioner model because of the structure, and the potential for repeatability, that they offer. There is an implicit guarantee in the use of methods that, provided they are

TABLE 1.1 Deﬁnitions of Human Factors and Ergonomics

Author Deﬁnition of Human Factors and Ergonomics

Murrell, 1965 …the scientiﬁc study of the relationship between man and his working environment.

In this sense, the term environment is taken to cover not only the ambient environment in which he may work but also his tools and materials, his methods of work and the organization of the work, either as an individual or within a working group. All these are related to the nature of man himself; to his abilities, capacities and limitations.

Grandjean, 1980 …is a study of man’s behavior in relation to his work. The object of this research is man at work in relation to his spatial environment…the most important principle of ergonomics: Fitting the task to the man. Ergonomics is interdisciplinarian: it bases its theories on physiology, psychology, anthropometry, and various aspects of engineering.

Meister, 1989 …is the study of how humans accomplish work-related tasks in the context of human- machine system operation and how behavioral and nonbehavioral variables affect that accomplishment.

Sanders and McCormick, 1993 …discovers and applies information about human behavior, abilities, limitations, and other characteristics to the design of tools, machines, tasks, jobs, and environments for productive, safe, comfortable, and effective human use.

Hancock, 1997 …is that branch of science which seeks to turn human–machine antagonism into human–machine synergy.

Source: Dempsey, P.G., Wolgalter, M.S., and Hancock, P.A. (2000), Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 1, 3–10. With permission.

(19)

Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods 1-3

used properly, they will produce certain types of useful products. It has been suggested that human factors and ergonomist methods are a route to making the discipline accessible to all (Diaper, 1989; Wilson, 1995). Despite the rigor offered by methods, however, there is still plenty of scope for the role of experience. Stanton and Annett (2000) summarized the most frequently asked questions raised by users of ergonomics methods as follows:

• How deep should the analysis be?

• Which methods of data collection should be used?

• How should the analysis be presented?

• Where is the use of the method appropriate?

• How much time and effort does each method require?

• How much and what type of expertise is needed to use the method?

• What tools are there to support the use of the method?

• How reliable and valid is the method?

It is hoped that the contributions to this book will help answer some of those questions.

1.2 Layout of the Handbook

The handbook is divided into six sections, each section representing a specialized ﬁeld of ergonomics with a representative selection of associated methods. The sequence of the sections and a brief description of their contents are presented in Table 1.2. The six sections are intended to represent all facets of human factors and ergonomics in systems analysis, design, and evaluation. Three of the methods sections (Sections I through III) are concerned with the individual person and his or her interaction with the world (i.e., physical methods, psychophysiological methods, and behavioral–cognitive methods). One of the methods sections (Section IV) is concerned with the social groupings and their interaction with the world (i.e., team methods). Another of the methods sections (Section V) is concerned with the effect

TABLE 1.2 Description of the Contents of the Six Methods Sections of the Handbook Methods Sections in Handbook Brief Description of Contents

Section I: Physical Methods This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of musculoskeletal factors The topics include: measurement of discomfort, observation of posture, analysis

of workplace risks, measurement of work effort and fatigue, assessing lower back disorder, and predicting upper-extremity injury risks

Section II: Psychophysiological Methods

This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of human psychophysiology The topics include: heart rate and heart rate variability, event-related potentials,

galvanic skin response, blood pressure, respiration rate, eyelid movements, and muscle activity

Section III: Behavioral–Cognitive Methods

This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of people, events, artifacts, and tasks

The topics include: observation and interviews, cognitive task analysis methods, human error prediction, workload analysis and prediction, and situational awareness

Section IV: Team Methods This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of teams

The topics include: team training and assessment requirements, team building, team assessment, team communication, team cognition, team decision making, and team task analysis

Section V: Environmental Methods This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of environmental factors The topics include: thermal conditions, indoor air quality, indoor lighting, noise

and acoustic measures, vibration exposure, and habitability Section VI: Macroergonomics

Methods

This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of work systems The topics include: organizational and behavioral research methods,

manufacturing work systems, anthropotechnology, evaluations of work system intervention, and analysis of the structure and processes of work systems

(20)

that the environment has on people (i.e., environmental methods). Finally, the last of the methods sections (Section VI) is concerned with the overview of work systems (i.e., macroergonomics methods). These sets of methods are framed by the classic onion-layer analysis model, working from the individual, to the team, to the environment, to the work system. In theoretical system terms, the level of analysis can be set at all four levels, or it may focus at only one or two levels. The system boundaries will depend upon the purpose of the analysis or evaluation.

Each section of the handbook begins with an introduction written by the editor of that section. The introduction provides a brief overview of the ﬁeld along with a description of the methods covered in the sequence that they appear. The editor responsible for that section determined the contents of each section. Their brief was to provide a representative set of contemporary methods that they felt were useful for ergonomic analyses and evaluation. Given the restrictions on page length for the handbook, this was a tall order. Nonetheless, the ﬁnal set of chapters does present a good overview of contemporary devel- opments in ergonomics methods and serves as a useful handbook. Some of the methods in Section V, Environmental Methods, do not follow the template approach, especially in lighting and thermal methods. This is because there is no single method that is favored or complete. Therefore, it would be very misleading to select any single method.

Wilson (1995) divides ergonomics methods into ﬁve basic types of design data:

1. Methods for collecting data about people (e.g., collection of data on physical, physiological, and psychological capacities)

2. Methods used in system development (e.g., collection of data on current and proposed system design)

3. Methods to evaluate human–machine system performance (e.g., collection of data on quantitative and qualitative measures)

4. Methods to assess the demands and effects on people (e.g., collection of data on short-term and longer-term effects on the well-being of the person performing the tasks being analyzed) 5. Methods used in the development of an ergonomics management program (e.g., strategies for

supporting, managing, and evaluating sustainable ergonomics interventions).

These ﬁve basic types of design data have been put into a table to help in assessing their relationship with the six methods section in this book, as shown in Table 1.3.

As Table 1.3 shows, the methods in this handbook cover all of the ﬁve basic types of design data. The darker shading represents a primary source of design data, and the lighter shading represents a secondary, or contributory, source of design data.

TABLE 1.3 Mapping Wilson's Five Basic Types of Design Data onto the Method Sections in the Handbook

Data about People

Systems Development

Human–Machine Performance

Demand and Effects on

People

Ergonomics Management

Programs Physical

Psychophysiological Behavioral–

Cognitive Team Environmental Macroergonomics

(21)

1.3 Layout of Each Entry

The layout of each chapter is standardized to assist the reader in using the handbook. This approach was taken so that the reader would easily be able to locate the relevant information about the method. All of the information is given in a fairly brief form, and the reader is encouraged to consult other texts and papers for more background research on the methods and more case examples of application of the methods. The standard layout is described in Table 1.4.

The standardized approach should support quick reference to any particular method and encourage the readers to browse through potential methods before tackling the particular problem that they face.

It is certainly the intention of this text to encourage the use of ergonomics methods, provided that suitable support and mentoring is in place to ensure that the methods are used properly.

1.4 Other Methods Books

The number of methods books continues to grow, making it impossible to keep up with every text and to choose or recommend a single method book for all purposes. The best advice is to select two or three that meet most of your needs, unless you can afford to stock a comprehensive library. There tend to be four types of methods books. The ﬁrst type is the specialized and single authored, such as Hierarchical Task Analysis (Shepherd, 2001). The second type of book is specialized and edited, such as Task Analysis (Annett and Stanton, 2000). The third type of book is generalized and edited, such as Evaluation of Human Work (Wilson and Corlett, 1995). The fourth kind of book is generalized and authored, such as A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics (Stanton and Young, 1999). This classiﬁcation in presented in Table 1.5.

TABLE 1.4 Layout of the Chapters in the Handbook

Section Chapter Description of Contents

Name and acronym Name of the method and its associated acronym Author name and afﬁliation Names and afﬁliations of the authors

Background and applications Introduces the method, its origins and development, and applications

Procedure and advice Describes the procedure for applying the method and general points of expert advice Advantages A list or description of the advantages associated with using the method

Disadvantages A list or description of the disadvantages associated with using the method Example Provides one or more examples of the application to show the output of the method Related methods Lists any closely related methods, particularly if the input comes from another method

or the method's output feeds into another method

Standards and regulations Lists any national or international standards or regulations that have implications for the use of the method

Approximate training and application times

Provides estimates of the training and application times to give the reader an idea of the commitment

Reliability and validity Cites any evidence on the reliability or validity of the method

Tools needed A description of the tools, devices, and software needed to carry out the method References A bibliographic list of recommended further reading on the method and the

surrounding topic area

TABLE 1.5 Methods Books Taxonomy

Specialized Generalized

Authored Hierarchical Task Analysis by Andrew Shepherd

A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics by Neville Stanton and Mark Young Edited Task Analysis

by John Annett and Neville Stanton

Evaluation of Human Work by John Wilson and Nigel Corlett

(22)

An analysis of 15 other methods books published over the past decade shows the range of edited and authored texts in this ﬁeld, the length of the books, and their coverage. Any of these books could complement this handbook. Where they differ is in their scope (e.g., either being focused on human–computer interaction or more generalized) and their coverage (e.g., either covering one or two areas of ergonomics or having more general coverage). A summary of the texts is presented in Table 1.6.

As Table 1.6 indicates, there is certainly no shortage of ergonomics methods texts. Selection of the appropriate text will depend on the intended scope and coverage of the ergonomics intervention required.

1.5 Challenges for Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods

Ergonomics science abounds with methods and models for analyzing tasks, designing work, predicting performance, collecting data on human performance and interaction with artifacts and the environment in which this interaction takes place. Despite the plethora of methods, there are several signiﬁcant challenges faced by the developers and users of ergonomics methods. These challenges include:

• Developing methods that integrate with other methods

• Linking methods with ergonomics theory

• Making methods easy to use

TABLE 1.6 Overview of Other Methods Books

Author(s) Title Edited/Authored Date (ed.) Pages Coverage^a

Annett and Stanton

Task Analysis Edited 2000

(1st)

242 B/C, T Corlett and

Clarke

The Ergonomics of Workspace and Machines

Edited 1995

(2nd)

128 P, B/C Diaper and

Stanton

Task Analysis in Human–Computer Interaction

Edited 2004

(1st)

760 B/C, T Helender et al. Handbook of Human–Computer

Interaction

Edited 1997

(2nd)

1582 P, B/C, T, M Jacko and Sears The Human–Computer Interaction

Handbook

Edited 2003

(1st)

1277 P, B/C, T, M Jordan et al. Usability Evaluation in Industry Edited 1996

(1st)

252 P, B/C Karwowski and

Marras

The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook

Edited 1999

(1st)

2065 P, PP, B/C, T, E, M Kirwan A Guide to Practical Human

Reliability Assessment

Authored 1994

(1st)

592 B/C

Kirwan and Ainsworth

A Guide to Task Analysis Edited 1992

(1st)

417 B/C

Salvendy Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics

Edited 1997

(2nd)

2137 P, PP, B/C, T, E, M Schraagen et al. Cognitive Task Analysis Edited 1999

(1st)

B/C Seamster et al. Applied Cognitive Task Analysis Authored 1997

(1st)

338 B/C

Shepherd Hierarchical Task Analysis Authored 2001

(1st)

270 B/C

Stanton Human Factors in Consumer Products

Edited 1998

(1st)

287 P, B/C Stanton and

Young

A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics

Authored 1999

(1st)

150 B/C

Wilson and Corlett

Evaluation of Human Work Edited 1995

(2nd)

1134 P, PP, B/C, T, E, M

aKey to coverage: physical methods (P), psychophysiological methods (PP), behavioral and cognitive methods (B/C), team methods (T), environmental methods (E), macroergonomic methods (M).

(23)

• Providing evidence of reliability and validity

• Showing that the methods lead to cost-effective interventions

• Encouraging ethical application of methods

Annett (2002) questions the relative merits for construct and criterion-referenced validity in the development of ergonomics theory. He distinguishes between construct validity (how acceptable the underlying theory is), predictive validity (the usefulness and efﬁciency of the approach in predicting the behavior of an existing or future system), and reliability (the repeatability of the results). Investigating the matter further, Annett identiﬁes a dichotomy of ergonomics methods: analytical methods and evaluative methods. Annett argues that analytical methods (i.e., those methods that help the analyst gain an understanding of the mechanisms underlying the interaction between human and machines) require construct validity, whereas evaluative methods (i.e., those methods that estimate parameters of selected interactions between human and machines) require predictive validity. This distinction is made in Table 1.7.

This presents an interesting debate for ergonomics: Are the methods really this mutually exclusive?

Presumably, methods that have dual roles (i.e., both analytical and evaluative, such as task analysis for error identiﬁcation) must satisfy both criteria. It is possible for a method to satisfy three types of validity:

construct (i.e., theoretical validity), content (i.e., face validity), and predictive (i.e., criterion-referenced empirical validity). The three types of validity represent three different stages in the design, development, and application of the methodology, as illustrated in Figure 1.1. There is also the question of reliability, and a method should be demonstrably stable over time and between people. Any differences in analyses should be due entirely to differences in the aspect of the world being assessed rather than differences in the assessors.

Theoretical and criterion-referenced empirical validation should be an essential part of the method development and reporting process. This in turn should inform the method selection process. Stanton and Young (1999) have recommended a structured approach for selecting methods for ergonomic analysis, design, and evaluations. This has been adapted for more generic method selection and is presented in Figure 1.2.

As shown in Figure 1.1, method selection is a closed-loop process with three feedback loops. The first feedback loop validates the selection of the methods against the selection criteria. The second feedback loop validates the methods against the adequacy of the ergonomic intervention. The third feedback loop validates the initial criteria against the adequacy of the intervention. There could be errors in the development of the initial criteria, the selection of the methods, and the appropriateness of the intervention. Each should be checked. The main stages in the process are identified as: determine criteria (where the criteria for assessment are identified), compare methods against criteria (where the pool of methods are compared for their suitability), application of methods (where the methods are applied), implementation of ergonomics intervention (where an ergonomics program is chosen and applied), and evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention (where the assessment of change brought about by the intervention is assessed).

TABLE 1.7 Annett's Dichotomy of Ergonomics Methods

Analytic Evaluative

Primary purpose Understand a system Measure a parameter

Examples Task analysis, training needs analysis, etc. Measures of workload, usability, comfort, fatigue, etc.

Construct validity Based on an acceptable model of the system and how it performs

Construct is consistent with theory and other measures of parameter Predictive validity Provides answers to questions, e.g., structure of

tasks

Predicts performance

Reliability Data collection conforms to an underlying model Results from independent samples agree Source: Adapted from Annett, J. (2002), Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 3, 229–232. With permission.

(24)

The ultimate criteria determining the usefulness of ergonomics methods will be whether or not they help in analyzing tasks, designing work, predicting performance, collecting data on human performance and interaction with artifacts and the environment in which this interaction takes place. This requires that the twin issues of theoretical validity and predictive validity be addressed when developing and testing old and new methods. The approach taken in this handbook provides a benchmark on reporting on human factors and ergonomics methods. The information provided here is what all developers should ask of their own methods and, at the very least, all users of methods should demand of the developers.

References

Annett, J. (2002), A note on the validity and reliability of ergonomics methods, Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 3, 229–232.

Annett, J. and Stanton, N.A. (2000), Task Analysis, Taylor & Francis, London.

FIGURE 1.1 Validation of methods. (Adapted from Diaper, D. and Stanton, N.A. [2004], The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. With permission.)

FIGURE 1.2 Validating the methods selection ergonomics intervention process. (Adapted from Stanton, N.A. and Young, M.S. [1999], A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London. With permission.)

Theory or model of performance

Methodology for prediction

Prediction of performance

Actual performance Validation of

prediction Validation of

method Validation of

theory

Construct validity

Content validity

Predictive validity

Develop criteria for ergonomic analysis

Assess pool of methods against criteria

Decide upon ergonomics intervention

Select and apply methods:

Analyse output

Assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention

Validate selection process

Validate criteria development

Validate assessment process