skip to main content
10.1145/1362550.1362559acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Measuring situation awareness in command and control: comparison of methods study

Published: 28 August 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Motivation -- This research sought to compare three different approaches for measuring Situation Awareness (SA) during a command and control scenario.
Research approach -- A total of 20 participants undertook question one of the Combat Estimate, a military planning process, in an experimental command and control test bed environment. Participant SA was measured using three different SA measures: a freeze probe technique, a post trial subjective rating technique, and a critical incident technique interview approach. Comparisons were then made between the measures of SA obtained during the study.
Findings/Design -- The results show that the freeze probe measure (SAGAT) was the only measure that had a statistically significant correlation with participant performance. The findings also demonstrate that there was no significant correlation between the three SA measures used.
Research Implications -- The findings offer validation evidence for the SAGAT approach when used to measure participant SA during a command and control task and suggest that the three approaches used view SA in a different manner.
Originality/Value -- The research explores the measurement of SA during command and control activity and makes judgements on the suitability of each method for application in this context.
Take away message -- Analogous to the different theoretical perspectives on SA presented in the literature, these findings suggest that the methods compared view and assess SA in a very different manner.

References

[1]
Artman, H., 2000, Team situation assessment and information distribution. Ergonomics, Vol 43, pp 1076--1095.
[2]
Endsley, M. R., 1995a, Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems, Human Factors, Vol. 37, pp. 32--64.
[3]
Endsley, M. R., 1995b, Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems, Human Factors, Vol. 37, pp. 65--84.
[4]
Endsley, M. R., Sollenberger, R., & Stein, E., 2000. Situation Awareness: A comparison of measures. In Proceedings of the Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation: User-Centred Design for the New Millenium. Savannah, GA.
[5]
Endsley, M. R., Selcon, S. J., Hardiman, T. D., & Croft, D. G., (1998). A comparative evaluation of SAGAT and SART for evaluations of situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp 82--86). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
[6]
Gorman, J. C., Cooke, N., & Winner, J. L., 2006. Measuring team situation awareness in decentralised command and control environments. Ergonomics, Vol 49, pp 1312--1326.
[7]
Jones, D. G., & Endsley, M. R., 2000. Can real-time probes provide a valid measure of situation awareness? In Proceedings of the Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation: User-Centred Design for the New Millenium. Savannah, GA.
[8]
Jones, D. G., and Kaber, D. B., 2004. In N. Stanton, Hedge, Hendrick, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas (Eds.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press.
[9]
Klein, G. & Armstrong, A. A., 2005. Critical decision method. In N. A. Stanton, A. Hedge, E. Salas, H. Hendrick, & K. Brookhaus, (Eds.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, (pp. 35.1--35.8).
[10]
Patrick, J., James, N., Ahmed, A., and Halliday, P., 2006. Observational assessment of situation awareness, team differences and training implications. Ergonomics, Vol 49, pp 393--417.
[11]
Salmon, P., Stanton, N., Walker, G., & Green, D., 2006. Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. Journal of Applied Ergonomics, 37, 2, pp. 225--238.
[12]
Siemieniuch, C. E., & Sinclair, M. A., 2006. Systems Integration. Journal of Applied Ergonomics, 37, pp. 91--110.
[13]
Smith, K., & Hancock, P. A., 1995, Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness, Human Factors, 37, pp. 137--148.
[14]
Stanton, N. A., Stewart, R., Harris, D., Houghton, R. J., Baber, C., McMaster, R., Salmon, P. M., Hoyle, G., Walker, G. H., Young, M. S., Linsell, M., Dymott, R., & Green, D., 2006, Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics, Vol 49, pp 1288--1311.
[15]
Taylor, R. M., 1990, Situational Awareness Rating Technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478) pp3/1 -3/17, Neuilly Sur Seine, France: NATO-AGARD.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Evaluating the mismatch between user requirements and existing situation display tools in administrative crisis managementJournal of Contingencies and Crisis Management10.1111/1468-5973.1257632:2Online publication date: 15-May-2024
  • (2024)Performance in Command and Control: Results From a Scoping ReviewEuropean Journal for Security Research10.1007/s41125-024-00099-59:1-2(57-92)Online publication date: 17-May-2024
  • (2024)Modelling operator control work across traffic management domains: implications for interaction designCognition, Technology & Work10.1007/s10111-024-00754-w26:2(281-299)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2024
  • Show More Cited By
  1. Measuring situation awareness in command and control: comparison of methods study

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ECCE '07: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: invent! explore!
    August 2007
    334 pages
    ISBN:9781847998491
    DOI:10.1145/1362550
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    • The British Computer Society
    • ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
    • SIGCHI: Specialist Interest Group in Computer-Human Interaction of the ACM
    • Interactions, the Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group of the BCS
    • Middlesex University, London, School of Computing Science
    • European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
    • EACE: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics
    • Brunel University, West London, Department of Information Systems and Computing

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 28 August 2007

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. SA measurement
    2. command and control
    3. situation awareness

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    ECCE07
    Sponsor:
    ECCE07: European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2007
    August 28 - 31, 2007
    London, United Kingdom

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 91 submissions, 62%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)50
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Evaluating the mismatch between user requirements and existing situation display tools in administrative crisis managementJournal of Contingencies and Crisis Management10.1111/1468-5973.1257632:2Online publication date: 15-May-2024
    • (2024)Performance in Command and Control: Results From a Scoping ReviewEuropean Journal for Security Research10.1007/s41125-024-00099-59:1-2(57-92)Online publication date: 17-May-2024
    • (2024)Modelling operator control work across traffic management domains: implications for interaction designCognition, Technology & Work10.1007/s10111-024-00754-w26:2(281-299)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2024
    • (2023)A Review on C3I Systems’ Security: Vulnerabilities, Attacks, and CountermeasuresACM Computing Surveys10.1145/355800155:9(1-38)Online publication date: 16-Jan-2023
    • (2010)Microblogging during two natural hazards eventsProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/1753326.1753486(1079-1088)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2010
    • (2009)Situation based control for cyber-physical environmentsMILCOM 2009 - 2009 IEEE Military Communications Conference10.1109/MILCOM.2009.5380000(1-7)Online publication date: Oct-2009

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media